The same can be said about climate change. Nothing about the future is for sure, but different actions bear different risks. Postponing any meaningful mitigation action until the shit hits the fan comes with considerable risk, because many changes in climate are not reversible on human timescales. Once you notice the trouble, it’s only the beginning, because of the inertia in the various systems (energy-, carbon cycle- and climate system). The ‘stop’ button has a delay of multiple decades, which means you have to act based on foresight, or what comes closest to it (e.g. projections based on science).

I was willing to take the low risk of using the drug in order to avoid the high risk of the can­cer count building up and being hard to reverse.

Climate and health: Both are a matter of risk.

If the situation deteriorates only gradually, rather than shock-wise, it is apparently much harder for people to seriously gauge the risk. It’s tempting to say: “Oh, I can still bear this”. It’s as if your point of reference gradually moves in synch with the situation. In such cases, a helicopter view is especially important.

I would say, ‘Beware the inexact comparison.’ If you absolutely must use a medical condition with Earth as a patient and climate change as the condition, make sure you do the following:

Get the right condition. It is absurd to use cancer, as climate change is not considered a potentially fatal condition to humanity, except for hysterics. I would suggest you could get some good use out of diabetes as a proxy.

Correctly identify the actors. If Earth is the patient and climate change is the condition, who is the doctor? (Be careful, here.)

What is the proposed treatment by the doctor?

What are the side effects of the treatment?

Is the patient insured? What payment mechanism do you propose?

Finally, just as you might single out skeptics as those saying the condition doesn’t require treatment, you should also single out those offering ‘homeopathic’ non-solutions that offer the patient no benefit, but enrich the homeopaths.

Of course the analogy isn’t perfect. However, Schneider himself said that he used the same principles wrt to his own state of health as he recommended policymakers use wrt climate change: How to deal with a large, though inherently uncertain risk in the future that is a consequence of one’s actions today. That is the crux of the comparison I (and he) was trying to make.

If you are going to use Dr. Schneider as an example, have you considered that his precautionary drug treatment regimen may have contributed to his heart disease that apparently killed him? We will never know, but it is a very important possibility to consider when objectively assessing risks.

Many people believe that some of the AGW “cures” will likely be much worse for mankind than the disease. The weakest portions of the IPCC involves the use of environmental advocate spit-balling of potential AGW risks and a complete disregard of the consequences of restricting energy in developing countries and the Third World. IMO, this is why Copenhagen failed.

I have noticed that the cancer analogy has reappeared. Since you have lost a brother to cancer, you should know how painful these analogies can be to relatives of recently deceased loved ones. And this analogy of climate has nothing to do with the horrible disease that is cancer.

And as far as I know, Steven has not ever once played this card, which is why I have so much esteem of him. Not because of his opinions, because we were not able to find a single item on which we agreed.

I agree and as you know I use the analogy often even though three of my family members struggled with cancer (but survived, thankfully).

Perhaps a better analogy is somebody with heart problems that has a lifestyle that is essentially slowly killing him. If he accepts that he is dying and that he must make significant changes to his habits, he might be back on the road to recovery. However, the more he delays, the more radical the changes must be and the less likely he will live.

Some of you here would tell this person to relax, just about all the doctors are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about. You might even tell the person to eat more bad foods and to exercise less. Enjoy life! Silly doctors, what do they know?

Dhogaza does not mince words but he understands the science and the coming crisis far better than most of his critics. I applaud his persistence.

Actually a better analogy is obesity, with CO2 concentrations serving as fat. Just like an obese person has to eat, we must emit CO2. Careful management of our energy diet will help us have more productive and enjoyable lives as a species.

There’s no need to babble about being killed off, unless you have bought into the hysteria of the last couple of years. Thankfully, saner heads are realising how destructive those scare stories were, and it is subsiding.

“If you are going to use Dr. Schneider as an example, have you considered that his precautionary drug treatment regimen may have contributed to his heart disease that apparently killed him? We will never know, but it is a very important possibility to consider when objectively assessing risks.”

He lived nine years after originally being given a nine-month prognosis. If his drug regime did contribute to his heart disease, I’d say the cost-benefit analysis was in his favor, by a large margin.

“Am I going to apply to my own treatment the principles that I’m advising governments and industries to apply to deal with climate change uncertainties? The answer was, `Hell, yes.’”

How to deal with a large, though inherently uncertain risk in the future in as far as it is a consequence of one’s actions today. That is the crux of the comparison I (and he) was trying to make. He even wrote a book about it, and I linked to an interview with him about the topic.

Interesting how what should be a decent debate breaks down because there is inherent disagreement on the nature of the appropriate medical condition.

Bart proposes a tipping point – ‘not reversible on human timescales’ – cancer which will kill you

Tom tries diabetes – incurable, life-shortening, but manageable? And says, in effect, that belief in Armageddon, tipping point, irreversibility, is for hysterics.

Then moves to obesity – curable with a bit of will-power and a gastric belt, hardly serious at all.

Scott – ‘the coming crisis’ – which I guess is closer to Bart’s irreversibility than obesity – and thanks for the link, too.

So discussion of the invocation of the precautionary principle, which is what is happening, is pointless. No-one can agree on the likely costs of inaction. And that’s even before the inevitable and highly complex costs of action. And that’s before the impacts of action (a la Lomborg).

So while I agree the plausible applicability of the precautionary principle to AGW, it is inapplicable because neither cost can be agreed on by rational people. Neither impact costs, nor mitigation costs. I listened to Bob Watson (ex chair IPCC) last week talking about Stern at the Monbiot debate – puhleeeze.

So the first comment out of the gate is a complaint about the analogy. There is a key sentence here, and Bart even highlighted it for us: “Postponing any meaningful mitigation action until the shit hits the fan comes with considerable risk, because many changes in climate are not reversible on human timescales.”

OMG, Bart used a bad word. As we continue to add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the science is attacked, with scientists geting their e-mails hacked, some people think the story is that scientists and those who communicate about science aren’t doing a good enough job communicating, and btw, some commenters are mean.

Being right about the science isn’t enough; we’re all supposed to have the patience of saints while people spout the same debunked talking points, or spend their time criticizing the scientists actually doing the work.

Actually a better analogy is obesity, with CO2 concentrations serving as fat. Just like an obese person has to eat, we must emit CO2. Careful management of our energy diet will help us have more productive and enjoyable lives as a species.

horrible comparison.

but i am not surprised. obesity really favours the “do basically nothing” approach that you suggest!

To steer this back: the basic problem is our inability to recognize long-term threats and to exercise the self-discipline to avoid these threats, especially when there are short-term gains.

Thinking back to the passage of the Clean Air and Water Acts in the US, and the establishment of the EPA (all under the Nixon administration), at the time, we all recognized the threat; growing up in Buffalo, NY, on the shores of a dying lake and surrounded by industry, the pollution was all too evident.

With the passage of various environmental measures, the beneficial effect was evident in a span of decades; we could reverse much of the apparent damage. But with the effects of CO2, we are trying to avoid damaging effects. We are not quite sick (pick whatever analogy you want) but the prognosis does not look good and some symptoms are apparent, but the timescale of remediation is measured in millennia, not decades.

Deech56 – that is the added dimension that makes the precautionary principle here so difficult, the lack of locality, winners and losers.

For example, the PP is enshrined in European Union (EU) law. We HAVE to act.

But the law is quite specific – it refers to damage to the EU, as in ‘Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle….’

You can hypothesise a situation where AGW impacts on the EU were net positive, it’s not impossible or even unlikely, or at the very least marginal in impact.

I also believe that the costs of achieving reductions, say along the lines of the UK Climate Change Act, will be extremely high. But we, in the EU/UK, are not, in my scenario, losers.

I also fear that even if we do something, sufficient others will do nothing (China/India/Africa), rendering our sacrifice utterly pointless.

So the impacts of invoking the precautionary principle are fraught with such high levels of uncertainty that it is impractical.

I think. :)

Your Buffalo NY and my River Thames – easy to solve. There hadn’t been a fish in the Thames for years when I was young.

Why do we seem to need an analogy when debating AGW? When I am diagnosed with cancer, I can pretty accurately schedule the rest of my life. When AGW is debated, we do not even agree about it being there, let alone that the symptoms support the diagnosis.

Any analogy is wrong, since we do not (yet) know what is causing what.

Ther is not a shimmer of proof that increasing CO2 is causing global warming. Nothing. And until that has been proven beyound any doubt, any analogy is bunk.

Let us first try to define a common ground on facts that we all can agree on. Then we can start looking for causes of the possible climatic abberations which are not wheather.

We do not need any analogy.

Climate is already complicated without the search for an analogy.

And remember: we already have more than enough analogies in the sense of all the bunk climate models.

Start measuring, start collecting data, start archiving data, and stop modyfying data with retrograde algorithms, and above all: start releasing the data to the public in an open and verifiable way, with abundant metadata.

Once these measures are in place, we can start talking about climate science.

And then it will be clear that we do not need painful analogies or silly models.

Those concerned by climate would ask you to thinks in terms of probabilities rather than absolute certainty. According to the precautionary principle, a probability of as little as 30% could demand action.

The medical analogy applies especially in that correctly identifying the disease determines the course of treatment. I’ve said before that, in this case, burning fossil fuels is the disease. CO2 emissions are a symptom. Basing policy on CO2 is like trying to cure a cancer patient by alleviating the pain in his side.

Harry – You have a good point when you say: “We do not need any analogy.”

Right. Climate science was not (is not) built on analogies.

Facts we can agree on? Let’s try some of these:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which has increased in the atmosphere substantially (by about 30%) over the last century or so.

2. The increase in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels, as identified by isotopic signature.

3. Over the same time frame, the Earth has warmed, as indicated by cryospheric trends, biospheric trends, the instrumental temperature record, measurements of oceanic heat content, etc. None of these are perfect indicators, but they all point in the same direction. (Could be a coincidence.)

4. But the amount of warming is about what is expected from mathematical models, from the simplest to the most complex, because the basic physical processes are quantitatively constrained to some degree. You call these “bunk climate models.” OK, let’s call them “quantitative analogies” and disregard them.

5. But the amount of warming is about what is expected from the long-term relation between CO2 level and temperature, as revealed by ice cores, which is stunningly consistent. (Yes, these too are imperfect, but most natural scientists would be overjoyed to have such detailed, highly correlated data sets as these, in whatever field they were working in.)

6. Other mechanisms that influence climate (solar inputs, orbital characteristics, etc.) have been identified and their effects quantified by observation (data) and theory. They do not negate the inferred CO2 effects.

I would say that these “facts”, along with other more detailed observations, constitute a “shimmer of proof”, whatever that is, but let’s not argue about that.

Now if you don’t agree with any of these “facts”, or just one or two, I would simply inquire as to where you get your information from, and leave it at that.

If you agree to several, or most of them, the remaining form the basis of a conversation.

If you agree to all of them, one can move on to the next questions.

We can avoid analogies. Rarely are there references to analogies in the primary (journal) literature.

#1. It seems to do. But it has been much higher was warming then also occurring? Warming has occurred, but without CO2. Where leaves this us?
#2. The isotopic signature is a matter of debate. It can also be explained by a massive outgassing of the oceans.
#3. The warming has stopped or even gone into cooling for the last 15 years, while CO2 has conantly (or nearly) risen.
#4. The physical basis of all models is backradiation from emitted heat by IR radiation into the atmosphere, wher it is caputured by the excess CO2 and backradiated to earth in the form of heat. This process violates tyhe second law of thermodynamics, so it does not exist. Exit GHG effect. No model can convince me, I can make any model for whatever purpose, to show that whales will be purple in 10 years due to increased CO2.
#5. Ice cores reveal more things, looking at 13B for instance will tell something about solar activity.
#6. A very weak argument. I think asteroid impacts will also allow modeeled CO2 to play its major role.
#7. You want me to show references, wheras you can get away with numbered statements?

“#2. The isotopic signature is a matter of debate. It can also be explained by a massive outgassing of the oceans.”

Look, people, it’s just not worth it. We can point out until we’re blue in the face that direct measurements (not to mention physics) rule out “massive outgassing of the oceans”, and harry will just ignore us, just as he ignores all the rest of the observational data and scientific theory.

My impression from reading a lot of scientific, peer reviewed papers. The science is not settled, it never will be. It is a contradictio in terminus to call any science “settled” . And there are a lot of conflicting theories around. When we have sufficient, reliable data, we can start to sift through these theories. As for now, anything is possible, nothing is excluded, and the verdict is still out.

PS. Sorry for the many mistypings in my previous posts. Spilled some coffee over my keyboard.

You know probably better than I do that there are two solutions to a quadratic formula. Your “physics”argument is the only one you are famous for, so I will not touch on it. It is exactly the LACK of observational data that you make use of. Would there have been sufficient, clean and raw data available, we would not be able to have this debate. It is only by grace of all the fudged data that people are still believing CO2 is the major culprit of the non existent global warming.

And as for your scientific theory: that is exactly what it is: an unproven scientific theory.

Pat Cassen, you made a very succinct and cogent statement of the consensus position (which actually is not as common or as easy as some might think). And I agree (I think…) with all of it. And I honestly think most of the people that regularly get labeled as deniers or delayers or flat earthers or bible thumpers, etc. etc. etc. day and night by people like a certain commenter here would also agree with it. People like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Steve Mosher, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen… I could go on.

In fact, I really don’t know many people who don’t.

What people disagree with is the theory about the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 being very high. And even then, they don’t say it’s impossible–they say they have seen little to no evidence of it.

But simply saying that you have seen no credible evidence of high atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations is enough to get you classed alongside Holocaust deniers.

My challenge for you (and the rest of the climate community) is to present a cogent and succinct list of the same quality as your previous one that will show us why we should believe sensitivity is high.

You and I agree that Harry has some serious catch-up to do with regard to climate science, but I don’t expect to change his mind about anything. Maybe he will decide to really study the subject – there are plenty of good, educational (i.e., .edu) sites available, or maybe he will encounter a trusted friend with whom he can discuss things civilly and get what we would regard as a more realistic view of the subject.

But now at least I have an idea of where he is coming from, and can only wish him the best in pursuing the subject, if he is really interested in doing so.

Harry – My comment here is not intended to be condescending. But one does not know where to begin a conversation if you honestly believe that a venerable subject like atmospheric physics is subject to such massive errors as violation of the 2nd law, or that researchers, editors, reviewers, educators, etc. have all conspired to fudge data, and so forth.

“It is only by grace of all the fudged data that people are still believing CO2 is the major culprit of the non existent global warming.” Why then, do you bother with the scientific literature? (Rhetorical question; no response necessary.)

My challenge for you (and the rest of the climate community) is to present a cogent and succinct list of the same quality as your previous one that will show us why we should believe sensitivity is high.

The main theoretical positive feedback resulting from increased temperature is from increased water vapor, due to model outputs demonstrating that relative humidity tends to stay relatively constant as temperature rises.

CO2 + water vapor is all that’s needed to get into 3C territory. Observations back up the theoretical description of the behavior of both.

So that means people like Tom Fuller have to postulate unknown negative feedback mechanisms – massive negative feedback due to increased clouds, GCRs, etc – in order to support the position that sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is far less than 3C.

Denialists have more faith in unknown, unmeasured massive negative feedbacks than well-supported (theory and observation) direct forcing due to CO2 and a large positive water vapor feedback.

So, Tom, back at you:

Give us a succinct, well-supported list of unknown feedbacks that counter the known combination of CO2 forcing and water vapor feedback.

“dhogaza, why would I correspond with someone who calls me a pimp and a lying sack of shit on another weblog and a denialist here?”

Because you might want to learn, rather than be a dishonest shill?

I love the way you hide behind this “you’re uncivil, so I won’t engage, and therefore I proudly stand ignorant” crap.

It’s a ploy on your part, Fuller.

No one is fooled.

Note: I didn’t write the paper I linked to. I didn’t build/design/launch the AIRS satellite. I don’t run NASA.

Your “I will stick my fingers in my ears going la-la-la-la I don’t hear you because you’re mean to me!” line is thin cover for refusing to read, acknowledge, and admit to three year old science that proves you wrong.

“Pat and Harry, when I first approached this issue I felt much as Harry did. So I know change is possible.”

Yet when you first appeared publicly touting your examiner blog, you claimed to accept climate science, just not some of the “alarmist stuff” or whatever. You claimed to be a liberal who accepted science hook, line, and sinker until you began to examine it yourself, and found it lacking.

So you are, in essence, saying that when you said you accepted the science, you were actually like Harry – refusing to believe stuff that’s as basic as the earth is round, not flat.

And now you claim to finally accept the science, yet you and Mosher are cashing in on a book that claims that much of climate science is based on fraud.

You are far too bright to continue this pointless arguing while the world indeed needs changing. Someone with your exuberance and ability to type could do so much more than defend a perceived climate orthodoxy.

Yours is an example of treating the symptom, not the disease. The end result of focusing on CO2 is endless dispute over minutiae drowning out even the most preliminary discussion of solutions.

Rather treat the disease. The only question between you and Tom should be: “Do you see a necessity of replacing fossil fuel use over the next 25 to 100 years?”

I seriously do not understand anyone who claims CO2 increase is mostly due to factors other than anthropogenic emissions. The simple facts are that this requires an enormous CO2 sink, which everyone has overlooked. Not too long ago, Roy Spencer made a model, proclaiming 80% of the CO2 increase to be due to ocean outgassing. Sadly, I only recently noted that blogpost, as I could have spared him the embarrassment of following up on that blogpost, still failing to understand why it is so stupid. I’ve noted some others have also picked up that the accounting simply does not hold up. For those interested, below a simple explanation:

Let’s say that annual atmospheric increase in CO2 is about 3.2 GtC per year. If 80% is due to ocean outgassing, that would amount to a contribution of about 2.6 GtC/y. That leaves at most 0.6 GtC/y for the anthropogenic emissions.
The latter are about 7 GtC/y. That means 90% of human CO2 emissions are taken up by a sink.
This must mean that same sink also takes up 90% of the ocean outgassing(!). That amounts to 26 GtC/y.

Conclusion: somewhere there should be a sink for 32 GtC/y. That’s an enormous amount, and unless someone comes with a credible sink for this amount, he/she is not to be taken seriously in the debate. And that, unfortunately, thus also includes Roy Spencer.

One of the first things I learned in academia (as an undergraduate student) is the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. “Just a scientific theory” is something one would expect a non-academically trained person to say.

Excellent and succinct summary of the most basic facts. I may have a minor quibble with nr 5 though: The current temp increase is less than what the ice age correlation between temp and CO2 *in isolation* would make one think. (see eg fig 2 in Hansen’s Target paper). That is partly because the negative aerosol forcing has masked a good portion (~half) of the greenhouse forcing, and partly because during the ice ages other forcings were also at work which are not as relevant today (Milankowitch and strong albedo feedback from exposed ice vs land surfaces). However, from the same figure can be seen that the temp does follow suit (kind of) with the *net climate forcing*, though not quite, as the climate hasn’t equilibrated yet (that portion signifies the ‘warming in the pipeline’).

What people disagree with is the theory about the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 being very high. And even then, they don’t say it’s impossible–they say they have seen little to no evidence of it.

what do you mean, when you say “very high”? 2°C? 2.5°C? 6°C?

what do you think, is the sensitivity?

But simply saying that you have seen no credible evidence of high atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations is enough to get you classed alongside Holocaust deniers.

ahh, godwin. you get labeled denialists, because you deny the basic facts of an event called “climategate” by you.

i have pointed out multiple massive errors in your posts (“amazongate” jumps to mind), but you DENIED to correct them.

My challenge for you (and the rest of the climate community) is to present a cogent and succinct list of the same quality as your previous one that will show us why we should believe sensitivity is high.

why don t you provide the evidence, that shows that it is low? (like below 1°C, to put a number in)

Deech56, as you well know, sod is another of the commenter/harassers who make a habit of insulting me on weblogs like Deltoid and then asking lots of questions, usually irrelevant, to try and engage me so they can insult me here. Very much like dhogaza. You can see slight evidence of that here in this thread. As I know you are aware, it gets much worse on trash heaps like Deltoid, etc.

It’s an attempt to hijack the thread and I am no longer willing to participate. I do not wish to correspond to people who lie about me and insult me, especially behind my back.

This particular question is not irrelevant–but then, they often start with an innocuous sounding question before the insults and lies begin to issue forth.

So, I’m afraid that in this conversation you will not see an answer to Sod’s first question here. I’ve written about sensitivity before. I cannot imagine someone would really depend on my opinion about sensitivity, as I am not a scientist. As I’ve often said, I can follow the equations but choosing which values to put in is a matter of trust, so no matter what value I give you for sensitivity, it will just show you which class of scientists I have grown to trust for the values to plug into the equations.

Well, Deech56, I will answer that jerk’s question, although not with my own words.

“Our estimated mean global surface temperature increase by 2100 is 2.5 oC, reflecting the fact that the distribution is skewed toward high temperature increases. In contrast to our analysis the IPCC does not indicate whether there is a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10,000 chance of exceeding its upper estimate of 5.8 oC. Our illustrative results suggest that there is about a 1 in 100 chance of a global mean surface temperature increase by 2100 as large as 5.8 oC.”

As an illustration of the approach we find that, absent mitigation policies, our median projection shows a global mean surface temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 of 2.3°C, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.9°C to 5.3°C (see figure). The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports a range for the global mean surface temperature rise by 2100 of 1.4 to 5.8oC1 but does not provide likelihood estimates for this key finding although it does for others.

so i haven t completely figured out his opinion. is the IPCC number “very high” but the Webster one is not?

Tom, good thing you’re not into name calling. I will note, though, that you didn’t answer the question.

This thread really isn’t about you, but the reason for my interest is that you stated that “most of the people that regularly get labeled as deniers or delayers … would also agree with [Pat Cassen’s points].”; the difference being disagreement about climate sensitivity. Reading sites that attack “consensus” science, I would question that assertion, but in this context, Pat was examining the thoughts of harry.

I will take the effort, though, to dig through a couple of comments sections here to see what you’ve written (as in our discussion of (C)).

One can make a cogent argument for the IPCC range based on Knutti & Hegerl’s review and Annan & Hargreave’s paper, among others. A 3C/doubling is substantial and would certainly lead to a deteriorating situation. The likely outcome is a serious risk to our future.

In offering a degree-by-degree breakdown of the potential impacts of temperature change, the report aims to highlight the effects of stabilizing greenhouse gases at a chosen target level. … For example, the report shows that each 1 °C of warming will reduce rain in the southwest of North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa by 5–10%; cut yields of some crops, including maize (corn) and wheat, by 5–15%; and increase the area burned by wildfires in the western United States by 200–400%. The report also points out that even if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is stabilized, the world will continue to warm for decades. If concentrations rose to 550 parts per million, for example, the world would see an initial warming of 1.6 °C — but even if concentrations stabilized at this level, further warming would leave the total temperature rise closer to 3 °C, and would persist for millennia.

These numbers are based on the consensus value for climate sensitivity. Anyone who does not like analogies can mull over the real situation. The timing of this Report’s release is certainly ironic.

Pity that general circulation models do not resolve to that level of specificity and hence one struggles to understand if NRC is either using data or models for their assumptions.

At any rate, we can clearly see that there is nothing remotely resembling Pat Cassen’s list for sensitivity. The quality of information is an order of magnitude less. Whereas Pat Cassen’s list is methodical, simple and relies on observed physics, arguments for high sensitivity are vague, theoretical and seem almost mystical.

Our host is a climate scientist who studies aerosols. Bart, what do you think sensitivity is, and what has led you to that conclusion?

Tom – Yes, climate sensitivity is more difficult to constrain than other factors for which we have more or less direct measurements. But conclusions regarding it are hardly vague or mystical, nor are they entirely theoretical.

What happens when we take a purely empirical approach? The paleorecord provides substantial evidence for a strong relation between CO2 (and other GHGs), sea level, the temperature associated with precipitated H2O, ocean temperatures, ocean pH, biodiversity, and so forth. Instead of climate sensitivity in terms of K/CO2 doubling, think of climate sensitivity in terms of a perturbtion to the oversall relative climatic stability of the last ten thousand years (or more), taking into consideration climate’s multiple components.

We can make another list:

Changes in CO2 are observed (i.e., inferred from the paleorecord) to be associated with:

Now consider the fact that these relationships are often discernible even when the CO2 variation was modest compared to that which we are now producing. The inescapable conclusion, it seems to me, is that we are fostering societally significant changes.

Acceptance of this view allows one to move on to the next question: Are the changes good or bad? (I am persuaded that they will be essentially disruptive in multiple ways, and are therefore bad.)

Pat Cassen, I largely agree with you. It is my understanding that there is broad agreement that the effects of global warming will produce outcomes that are very slightly positive for a further one degree of warming and will turn decidedly negative thereafter.

However, preparing for a serious but manageable 2.5 degree change requires very different decisions than preparing for extremely serious 5.8 degree change. We need to do different things.

I don’t think that our knowledge of sensitivity can at this point guide our actions. Nor can the precautionary principle truly guide us, as the die has largely been cast.

Because of this (not despite it) the viable political approach has been incremental in nature and focused largely on no regrets options.

Despite my agreeing with you on the reality and potential gravity of climate change, I do believe that the no regrets approach is the best course of action until further data better informs our thinking.

Could you lay out examples of a no regrets approach for governmental and non governmental actions? Perhaps Bart or someone else will lay out some “regrets” actions. That might move the discussion to things that matter.

I’m happy to. First, my list has little or nothing to do with a list using the same name put out by U.S. Republicans during the first Bush administration, although they had one or two good ideas.

First: Improve resiliency in developing countries by addressing resource shortages in water, agriculture, energy and healthcare. Global climate change will be expressed at a regional level, and a healthy region is the best defense.

Second: Continue (and increase) government support for installations of renewable and/or nuclear energy.

Third: Maintain (and increase) research and development into alternative energy sources and energy efficiency possibilities. I’d like to see a biotechnological approach to improving biofuels on a large scale, for example. Another would be utility level energy storage.

Fourth: Put a small price on carbon in the U.S. and China, especially. Heck, India has a price on carbon.

Fifth: Continue initiatives such as Energy Star and LEEDS in the U.S., making it practical to save energy.

Sixth: Build a smart grid and roll out both smart meters and home energy management systems that allow tiered pricing of electricity by time of day and the opportunity to sell electricity back to the grid.

Seventh: Begin a fifty year program of disincentivisation for further development of land threatened by sea level rise. Make insurance and permits harder to get, don’t promise infrastructure, etc.

Eighth: Remove logistical obstacles to easy improvements. Example: Eliminate no-fly zones for commercial aircraft left over from the cold war, and allow pilots to choose most efficient routes, and use direct descent to airports to save fuel and reduce holding patterns.

Pity that general circulation models do not resolve to that level of specificity and hence one struggles to understand if NRC is either using data or models for their assumptions.

we do not need more detailed information on a regional level. this is basic common sense. a 3°C rise of global temperature will leave multiple regions with a temperature rise, that is significantly higher.

some places on earth will have to deal with changes up to double of that.

At any rate, we can clearly see that there is nothing remotely resembling Pat Cassen’s list for sensitivity. The quality of information is an order of magnitude less.

this claim is complete rubbish. you cited a source, that is NOT really different from what the IPCC says. definitely not an order of magnitude higher. there is no difference. there is broad agreement. as you showed yourself!

there isn t even an order of magnitude between 0.9 and 5.3. you got your numbers wrong, Tom. again.

t is my understanding that there is broad agreement that the effects of global warming will produce outcomes that are very slightly positive for a further one degree of warming and will turn decidedly negative thereafter.

you are about as wrong as anyone can be. there is no such broad agreement. actually, copenhagen was trying to achieve a 1.5° to 2°C limit on temperature increase over preindustrial times. those guys haven t figured out the slight positive effect and the broad agreement, have they?!?

However, preparing for a serious but manageable 2.5 degree change requires very different decisions than preparing for extremely serious 5.8 degree change. We need to do different things.

i am pretty shocked by such garbage. the simple answer is: you are completely wrong.

a 2.5°C increase, added to the nearly 1°C that we already have, and factoring in regional effects that will be bigger is a catastrophe.

calling a change by 5.8C “extremely serious” is an understatement of first order. cutting of heads is a pretty serious sort of surgery, according to Tom Fuller.

Fuller is a inactivists and a denialist on climate action. you can easily spot that in his list.

“continue XXX” means business as usual. the idea that continuing what we do today (and increase in brackets) will change anything, is absurd.

First: Improve resiliency in developing countries by addressing resource shortages in water, agriculture, energy and healthcare. Global climate change will be expressed at a regional level, and a healthy region is the best defense.

we fail to safe people from starvation today. why should this get better, under the banner of fighting global warming?

people spent money on things that helps themselves. that is, why everyone who wants action, prefers cap and trade. people will help the poor, while helping themselves.

every other approach is an illusion.

Fourth: Put a small price on carbon in the U.S. and China, especially. Heck, India has a price on carbon.

Tom, as always, provides no number. his allies in the denialist movement will fight any tax increase to the death.

a meaningful tax will hurt. a non-meaningful tax will not change anything.

the “minor” carbon tax is a smoke bomb, a tool used by denialists to prevent serious action.

No one seems willing to provide a number for either a punitive carbon tax that meets the meaningful standard or a non punitive one that Tom prefers. Waiting for cap/trade is chasing a ghost. Nor is it any less regressive towards the poor. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.

But since you and Tom agree on at least some level of additional carbon pricing, differing only on amount and mechanism, I’ll ask each of you how much added cost you are personally willing to bear from such pricing?

But since you and Tom agree on at least some level of additional carbon pricing, differing only on amount and mechanism, I’ll ask each of you how much added cost you are personally willing to bear from such pricing?

i follow the scientific mainstream and consensus.

i am willing to bear the cost, that is necessary to limit temperature rise to 2°C.

simple, isn t it?

Nor is it any less regressive towards the poor. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.

both measures must be accompanied by tax reductions and increases of support for the poor.

If you wanted to design a threat that our political system couldn’t address, here’s what you’d do: You’d make the pain of doing nothing come much later, but the pain of doing something begin right now. You’d concentrate the costs of failure in poor countries, while the costs of a policy solution would be concentrated in certain regions of America. You’d make it hard to solve without the imposition of a new tax. You’d make sure that some of the largest and richest industries in the world had an enormous amount to fear from that tax.

I was looking for a dollar amount you’d be personally be willing to bear. How about $120/year as a starting point for discussion?

There’s not much to choose between Tom’s $12 tax, which sod says does nothing, and sod’s cap/trade, which he understands is very unlikely to be enacted. Note that sod says carbon pricing must be accompanied by yet another tax on financial transactions totally unconnected to carbon.

“necessary to limit temperature rise to 2°C.” is meaningless in terms of policy. First of all, both the long term instrumental era trend and the current warming 30 year trend are below 2C projected over the next century. If my goal is to limit warming to 0.2C/decade, the last decade has been a roaring success.

Since the radiative effect of doubling CO2 concentration is less than 1C, any warming above that will be caused by feedbacks. It may be more fruitful, politically possible, and cost effective to focusing on reducing the impact of known positive feedbacks.

Paul, at average per capita emissions $12/ton translates to $108 per year. I would pay that directly, or indirectly if it’s easier. I would pay that as an extra tax on top of the taxes which you correctly point out already exceed that level.

In a survey I ran last year on examiner.com, respondents seemed willing to pay more for mitigation than prevention. I remember that the Republicans who filled out the survey said they were willing to pay $250 a year more in taxes to build a smart grid.

I think charging large emitters $12/ton and returning the money collected to consumers via reduced taxes on labor would be the most popular way to do this. But I’m not really too fussy about it.

As many others have suggested, I think starting at $12/ton with a mandate to revisit and adjust every decade based on agreed metrics would also be wise. Metrics would obviously include emissions and concentrations, but also maybe… global mean temperatures….

The idea that we should do something just in case it might warm enough to cause major problems brings up the counter point that we should actually do something in case it cools significantly instead. The reason the choice should favor the precaution for cooling is due to the fact that cooling may have much larger negative effects than warming (at realistic levels). Crop loss due to cooling would cause mass starvation. Warming would possibly cause some groups to relocate from very low-lying areas, or need to build water barriers, but this is far less likely to occur on a short time scale. Increasing glaciers would threaten land, where retreating glaciers would make land available. Human history has indicated that warm periods were generally productive times, and cold times much worse. Since the temperature is projected to start dropping due to going into a La Nina, along with low solar activity, and since we are in fact near the end of the present interglacial period (from comparisons to the several previous ones), worrying about cooling is potentially the far larger problem, especially with a growing population.

“The idea that we should do something just in case it might warm enough to cause major problems brings up the counter point that we should actually do something in case it cools significantly instead.”

Oh, sure, and we should take precautions against the sky turning purple and pink, too, because every future your imagination can hypothesize is equally likely, right?

Look up the word “science”, and come back when you understand what it means.

dhogaza Says:
“Oh, sure, and we should take precautions against the sky turning purple and pink, too, because every future your imagination can hypothesize is equally likely, right?”

The point I was making is that the level of certainty of serious warming is NO HIGHER than the certainty of serious cooling, and in fact there is reasonable cause to consider the cooling version. There has been some warming, and it may even go a bit higher, but there is no falsifiable evidence that supports CAGW (as opposed to mild AGW). However, there is evidence and historical support for the oncoming cooling. You should actually look up the word science yourself.

I would ask you to give the demonstrated falsifiable evidence for CAGW. All I have seen is a bunch of models that lack much of the critical physics on aerosols, clouds, solar effects (other than direct insolation), and ocean currents. Plug inserts to force fit data over a short period of prior time doesn’t cut it.

I was looking for a dollar amount you’d be personally be willing to bear. How about $120/year as a starting point for discussion?

how about $1200? the idea behind the tax, is a change in behaviour. a $120 tax per year will not change anything.

i would say that i use less than average carbon, but have a higher than average income. any carbon tax that starts hurting me, would cause serious pain to a lot of other people. such a tax will never happen.

i don t think that a discussion of absolute numbers is a good idea though, because the concept of a carbon tax is, that you do NOT pay a significant part of it, because you change your behaviour over time.

There’s not much to choose between Tom’s $12 tax, which sod says does nothing, and sod’s cap/trade, which he understands is very unlikely to be enacted. Note that sod says carbon pricing must be accompanied by yet another tax on financial transactions totally unconnected to carbon.

you misunderstood me. completely. i did not say, that cap and trade is unlikely to happen. i said the opposite. cap and trade is much more likely, than a significant carbon tax.
that is one major reason, why it is proposed as a solution. (and why it does already exist in significant parts of the world)

the carbon tax on the other hand, is nothing but a smoke screen. just another term for “do nothing” at all!”.

“necessary to limit temperature rise to 2°C.” is meaningless in terms of policy. First of all, both the long term instrumental era trend and the current warming 30 year trend are below 2C projected over the next century. If my goal is to limit warming to 0.2C/decade, the last decade has been a roaring success.

last decade was 0.16°C. last 30 years was 0.17°C per decade.

“roaring success” sounds different to me, than being 0.03° below the number, for unknown reasons.

As many others have suggested, I think starting at $12/ton with a mandate to revisit and adjust every decade based on agreed metrics would also be wise. Metrics would obviously include emissions and concentrations, but also maybe… global mean temperatures….

Paul Kelly wrote: “Since the radiative effect of doubling CO2 concentration is less than 1C, any warming above that will be caused by feedbacks. It may be more fruitful, politically possible, and cost effective to focusing on reducing the impact of known positive feedbacks.”

What about physically possible? We should stop evaporation caused by warmer temperatures? Carbon release from melting permafrost? Deforestation from forest fires? What did you have in mind?

Leonard Weinstein wrote: “The point I was making is that the level of certainty of serious warming is NO HIGHER than the certainty of serious cooling, and in fact there is reasonable cause to consider the cooling version.”

Really? Where do you get that? We’re in pretty good agreement here that the climate sensitivity is around 3C/doubling and very unlikely to be under 1.5C/doubling. Not much room for cooling, or purple skies (green skies, maybe).

And please don’t use the use the prefix “C” for AGW unless you define it. Scientists have not. For Tom Fuller it means above the IPCC range.

Since the total temperature rise from the 1880 or so (used as a starting point for the present warming period), the temperature has risen between 0.7 and 0.8 degrees K. About half of the rise occurred by 1940, and has been generally admitted to have been mostly a natural recovery from the unusually cool period encountered up to the mid 1800’s. It is reasonable that some of the additional heating since 1940 is also natural variation, since the major up and down cycle over the last several thousand years typically last 50 to a few hundreds of years. Thus the human caused component of the present warm period is most likely only about a quarter of a degree K. Although cherry picking the starting and stopping dates for the present trends over the last decade or so is not useful, since different results can be derived by different choices, the temperature rise of the later part of the 20th century does not seem to be continuing in the 21st century. There has been a spike up in temperature the last year or so, but keep in mind this followed a spike down the previous year or so, so neither is useful for projecting forward. Nevertheless, despite the fact we are generally at a local peak for the last century or so, and admitting there may be some additional rise, there is no reasonable basis for claiming any additional rise would be more than a small fraction of a degree. The fact that models claim 1.5 to 5 degree K more by 2100 has no physical support based on actual trends. There is no hidden energy in the seas to count on to make a lagged large move. The facts do not support the models. The claims of 3 X positive feedback is not supported by the actual warming trend despite the papers that claim it is supported by indirect measurements. At most the issue can be called undecided, but again the trends to present do not support the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). You are entitled to believe what you want, but you are not entitled to making up the facts you want. It is also clear that at some point not very far off that cooling will be the problem, and that is a real problem.

CAGW is a hypothesis that is stated to happen if we increase CO2 beyond 450 ppm or some other selected level level of human caused warming that causes catastrophic events such as large increases of sea level flooding cities, CO2 acidifying the seas, killing all the corals, temperature increases high enough to kill large numbers of people, and plants, tornadoes, super storms, etc.

“The point I was making is that the level of certainty of serious warming is NO HIGHER than the certainty of serious cooling”

That’s not a point, it’s a statement of your personal stupidity and ignorance.

Advertise your obvious stupidity and ignorance all you want, all it will do is to reinforce the obvious conclusion that you’re stupid and ignorant.

And, no, this is not an “ad hom” attack. There is *zero* scientific evidence for your claim. Your claim is, indeed, equivalent to arguing that I’ll wake up tomorrow to a purple sky dropping green rain.

Go practice astrology or phrenology or whatever you base your claims on to those who are as ignorant as you.

I would ask you to give the demonstrated falsifiable evidence for CAGW. All I have seen is a bunch of models that lack much of the critical physics on aerosols, clouds, solar effects (other than direct insolation), and ocean currents.

CAGW is a hypothesis that is stated to happen if we increase CO2 beyond 450 ppm or some other selected level level of human caused warming that causes catastrophic events such as large increases of sea level flooding cities, CO2 acidifying the seas, killing all the corals, temperature increases high enough to kill large numbers of people, and plants, tornadoes, super storms, etc.

Climate science, on the other hand, simply says “we’re warming the planet”, and asks, “what should we do about it?”

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2) Increased CO2 will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.
3) CO2 is increasing and most of the increase is due to anthropogenic emissions.

I’m looking forward to ample citations, although G&T, Miscolizci (sic) and other similarly stupid papers will not be counted in your favor as they have been amply shown to be at odds with physics. Have fun!

Leonard Weinstein, there is so much wrong with your explanation, I don’t know where to begin, but I would say that your fatal flaw is looking at the temperature trends and trying to make the physics fit the trends, and then extrapolating future trends based your interpretation of the physics. That’s not what he scientists have done. Please check out the “Start Here” section of RealClimate to see the physical basis for the statements of R. norvegicus.

Rattus Norvegicus,
I and probably most skeptics that are scientists agree with your points 1,2, and 3. The issue has and continues to be the size and type of feedback and natural variation. The solar activity is probably one of the main causes of the variations (along with volcanoes and varying ocean currents ) that I call natural variation, so saying it was the sun makes you agree with what I said. Also I stated there is probably some human caused effect, the argument is the amount that reasonably can be attributed to CO2, and where it likely will go from there.

I did not come to this site calling names, I came to debate the issue. If you can’t be civil, you prove the claims of skeptics that you can’t stand on the science so you resort to name calling or other bad behavior. My interest is not to prove I am right but to find what the truth is, and many of you seem to be just the opposite.

I read real climate and most of the other blogs, but I also read most of the technical papers. My positions are a result of a scientist reviewing the technical literature and concluding that positions were being taken that had inadequate real world supporting evidence.

SOD,
The long drop from an interglacial period to a glacial period occurs over a few thousand years, but a drop large enough to be a killer can occur in decades to hundreds of years. The little ice age that killed the viking colony in about 1300 occurred in a short time. One large volcanic eruption occurring at the same time of a modest solar cooling or ocean current variations can flip the temperature quickly enough to change the situation in years or less.

“Leonard Weinstein, there is so much wrong with your explanation, I don’t know where to begin, but I would say that your fatal flaw is looking at the temperature trends and trying to make the physics fit the trends, and then extrapolating future trends based your interpretation of the physics. That’s not what he scientists have done. Please check out the “Start Here” section of RealClimate to see the physical basis for the statements of R. norvegicus.”

Looking at the temperature trends and trying to make sense of it from the physics is exactly what you have to do. However, the trends I refer to go back as far as we can reasonably go, not just the last 100 or so years. Also, I do not extrapolate, I look at what physics we do understand and try to see if there is a trend. I conclude we do not understand all of the physics and real world date well enough to make realistic extrapolations.

SOD,
The long drop from an interglacial period to a glacial period occurs over a few thousand years, but a drop large enough to be a killer can occur in decades to hundreds of years. The little ice age that killed the viking colony in about 1300 occurred in a short time. One large volcanic eruption occurring at the same time of a modest solar cooling or ocean current variations can flip the temperature quickly enough to change the situation in years or less.

Leonard, you are about as uninformed as Tom Fuller.

here is the Loehle reconstruction.

and here are the number for the next century, as cited by Tom Fuller:

our median projection shows a global mean surface temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 of 2.3°C, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.9°C to 5.3°C

so now tell me one simple thing: which century in the Loehle graph shows a temperature decrease similar to 2.3°C?

ps: mentioning the “vikings” identifies you as a person with a serious lack of understanding of all climate science.

sod,
“our median projection shows a global mean surface temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 of 2.3°C, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.9°C to 5.3°C”

And to what do we owe the projections, why to computer modeling with much of the physics missing. And why such a large range of possible values? Why because we don’t know enough. Why 95%, because we say so. Why vikings, why because global warming or cooling effects are largest near the poles.

sod,
One minor additional point. The global average is GLOBAL (surprise). Local variability, even over large regions may be much faster and larger. The LIA has been claimed to only cover Europe, northern US and Canada, Greenland, and possibly large parts of Asia. Well that is much of the populated world. Even if the Southern hemisphere was not as cold, so the global average was not as fast changing or as large, that does not prevent huge and fast changing local climate.

Leonard Weinstein:
“All I have seen is a bunch of models that lack much of the critical physics on aerosols, clouds, solar effects (other than direct insolation), and ocean currents. Plug inserts to force fit data over a short period of prior time doesn’t cut it.”

Hunh? What “models” are you talking about that “lack” your laundry list? Please be specific.

Well, of course it’d be better not postpone the right actions to treat the situation but it is evident that some things can’t just be stopped: metallurgic industry, nuclear power plants they’ll still be existing, it can’t be avoided.

“Dhog , SOD, Maple are trying to prevent the development of a critical approach to climate.”

How so? I’ve not seen much informed, relevant, and credible criticism of climate science from the contrarians/deniers; what they really do is play games – semantic, political, juvenile and otherwise. Monckton’s inane attack on Abraham is the perfect example.

“Factual information, no refernces to the IPCC reports, that is what I would like to see.”

That will require lots of reading, from easy stuff to rather technical journal articles. Are you willing to make the effort? I rather doubt it.

That is exactly what I am doing:reading a lot of peer reviewed papers. I am also trying to get my maths back up and running, so I can understand what Claessen is writing. I am developing experiments to measure the effects of backradiation, and implementing these experiments. I think I have a good setup to test backradiation in a very simple experimental setting.

It is very nice to almost the complete pack of climate wolves present and insulting any other person. Dhog , SOD, Maple are trying to prevent the development of a critical approach to climate.

you got it wrong.

Tom Fuller made a claim:

Deech56, I believe what Mr. Weinstein is saying is that if natural trends move climate towards a 5 degree cooling, any anthropogenic warming may not keep us very comfortable.

but a look at non-IPCC sources and his own source for temperature change over the next century show, that Tom is wrong.

The little ice age that killed the viking colony in about 1300 occurred in a short time. One large volcanic eruption occurring at the same time of a modest solar cooling or ocean current variations can flip the temperature quickly enough to change the situation in years or less.

again, a “sceptic” source (Loehle) and a source chosen by tom Fuller, show that this claim is wrong.

why don t you simply point out, which century over the last 2 thousand years

or the last 500 thousand years shows more cooling, than the Tom Fuller source expects in warming.

Pat Cassen :
“Leonard, why do you disagree with Knutti and Hegerl?”
First, it is a good summary paper on what is thought to be known facts and opinion on the feedback issue. However there are several problems with it.
1) The level of the temperature profiles and absolute humidity measured by radiosonde and satellite do not agree with the required changes needed to support the theories. Some disagreements are not fully resolved, some seem to support K & H, and some clearly do not. The biggest differences are at low latitudes and mid altitudes, where the theory is most critical.
2) Roy Spencer gives what seems to me to be reasonable argument that contradict the analysis for the determination of the feedback factor. He may be wrong, but I have not seen any reply that refutes him based on science.
3) The temperature rise since 1940 is only about 1/4 as large as the most likely increase should have been from the theory, for the CO2 increase. The excuse of aerosols nearly balancing CO2 effects is a plug with no real justification.
4) The temperature rise has essentially stopped over the last decade even though the aerosol problem is suppose to be reduced, and despite record CO2 levels and growth.
There are more reasons, but those are a start.

Derecho64:
Please read the discussion comments on ScienceOfDoom’s articles. He and I have been having a discussion (very polite for a change from this site). Especially look at the last few comments on part two.

You know how to force temperatures into your simple vision, don’t you? And Dhog is a master of physics, who can do wonders with the modified temeperatures.

As long as it is not clear whether the average global temperature in 1998 was warmer than that in 1936, I will not accept your arguments. And if it becomes clear that this is the case, please state which version of Hansen you are using.

It is incomprehensible that we have to discuss the global temperature. If data were maintained properly, we could not have this discussion. But having observed retrograde adjustments, losing previous versions of the global temperature record, and withholding the algorithms to calculate these, I resign. This has nothing to do with science, this is fudging.

Weinstein, if you’re so sure you’re right, why don’t you go argue with someone like James Annan, who, though convinced of AGW, was recently co-author of a paper on model projections vs. measured trend with a suite of well-known skeptics?

It’s entirely comprehensible, harry. Records weren’t being kept with a view towards being used to build global temp reconstructions for use by climate researchers.

Have you noticed how many stations are at airports? This is because the weather data is used to brief pilots on local conditions.

When historical data of any kind is used for purposes for which it was not intended, there will be problems, it’s guaranteed.

Same is true of the radiosonde data Weinstein mentions. It was gathered to help with the construction of local weather forecasts, not for reconstructions of long-term tropospheric water vapor profiles.

Tom Fuller,
I do not anticipate a global cooling of large magnitude occurring in the near future, but a drop of just 1 degree or so would put us back to the LIA level. I also do not believe a rise of more that a fraction of a degree will occur with any realistic level of CO2 (the 2 to 4 degree rise from models is science fiction). One fact most at this site seem to not get is that most of the rise over the last 50 or so years was not in the high temperatures increasing, but in the low temperatures being not as low, and the high latitudes being not as cold. Individual highs and lows will always occur regionally, but it is the climate, not the weather we are talking about.

Leonard Weinstein writes: “…most of the rise over the last 50 or so years was not in the high temperatures increasing, but in the low temperatures being not as low, and the high latitudes being not as cold.”

Who could have predicted such a thing? Add stratospheric cooling and we’d have a good science fiction novel.

Derecho64 Says,
I am fully aware of the work. The actual number of record highs was not unusual, it was the number of record lows that was unusually small that gave that result. If you look at my July 26 2:29 post you see that I made exactly that point. The US record is possibly the only large scale fairly reliable record over the last 100+ years (there are a few better records, but they are individual location records, not large areas). In the US record, there have been more peak temperature months in the 10 top months around the late 1920’s through early 1950’s than the 1990 to present period.

Derecho64,
It is interesting you should mention stratospheric cooling. There has been NO stratospheric cooling since the drop back from the spike up from Pinatubo in 1993. This even though MOST of the temperature rise on the ground occurred after this time. The step down from the level before Pinatubo occurred without a corresponding significant rise in ground temperature from immediately before to after the spike, so there is some residual effect causing that step that is not temperature related, but probably an ozone level effect due to Pinatubo. The long run of mean constant level since 1993 (all the way to the present) is easily a test of the expected stratospheric cooling, and fails.

dhogaza,
I don’t think the scientists that became skeptics would have jumped all over the fact that data that was previously collected for other purposes was used for climate analysis if the limitations of and the availability of the data (and any modifications) had been put up front. It was hiding data and methods and attacks on questioners that led to the conflict. It is the nature of new claims in science that questions are and should be made. From what I have read, the initial requests were not hostile attacks, but honest requests based on a desire to understand if the claims could possibly be true. If they were true, that would have huge importance. In my case, I actually accepted the initial positions until I had read a lot of papers and then read blogs on both sides. I am still not convince that there is no AGW, but I am fairly well convinced it is small and not a problem.

It has become clear to me that the responders to my points have their opinions and don’t choose to confuse the discussion with facts or logic. If they don’t care to debate the facts that is their loss. I have honestly responded to questions on what I say, and get garbage back.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Spent the day manning the Beverly Energy Club booth at the 103rd Street Art & Food Feast in Chicago. One feedback target could be fine particle black soot. Recent research indicates this byproduct of carbon burning is a prime forcing of ice loss.

I’m sorry, Leonard, but if you’re going to make an argument, you best present factual, solid, and relevant evidence. The RC article you point to isn’t really relevant to Meehl et.al., so no, it doesn’t count.

Derecho64,
The RC article showed that the US temperature had more high months in the period around the 30’s than the recent period. It was in response to a statement about the number of high months (and in fact showed 1934 has the highest, higher than 1998). It was not intended to be about Meehl. I could get that info but since you have the facts I don’t need to. You just have to look at your facts.

It has become clear to me that the responders to my points have their opinions and don’t choose to confuse the discussion with facts or logic. If they don’t care to debate the facts that is their loss. I have honestly responded to questions on what I say, and get garbage back.

Leonard, what you are doing is simple: you bring on a barrage of false claims, which you picked up somewhere on the internet. you are also doing a Gish gallop, changing subject, every time that one of your errors is pointed out.

you made tow claims, which i showed were false:

4) The temperature rise has essentially stopped over the last decade

please link the dataset you use, to support this claim!

The little ice age that killed the viking colony in about 1300 occurred in a short time.

please find a period in a reconstruction of the last 2000 years, that shows faster cooling than the Fuller source expects in warming over the next century!

It was a hypothetical to try and illustrate the point I thought Mr. Weinstein was making.

ah, Fuller is trying to pull a “Judith Curry defence”.

Gavin, the post I made in #167 was a summary of Montford’s book as closely as I can remember it, sort of a review. I did not particularly bring in my personal opinions into this, other than the framing of montford’s points. So asking me to retract a point made in a book in a review of that book is, well, pointless. your attempt to rebut my points are full of logical fallacies and arguing at points i didn’t make.

Leonard Weinstein, you wrote:”
The RC article showed that the US temperature had more high months in the period around the 30′s than the recent period.”

Could you please point me to the section in the RC blog you referred to in which this is shown? I can’t find it anywhere, but maybe I’m just having a trouble reading these days.

To explain that last half-sentence: I was stupid enough to take a look at Roy Spencer’s website and his defence of the greenhouse effect, and then I read several of the comments on that thread. It appears something similar has happened over at Watt’s blog after an item from Roger Pielke Sr. One may only hope both now realise that there is a significant number of people who you cannot educate. They simply believe to be right, take in the most craziest of information, and then throw that back into the conversation as being the absolute truth. Even a mathematics professor in Sweden apparently believes he understands backradiation better than physicists and engineers who are working with the relevant equations for decades. You can take that as a small hint to you also: some humility may be a good thing before proclaiming ‘the others’ have it all wrong.

Pat Cassen,
Blogs are a forum to openly discuss issues. Formal papers should be the final result of a study that has been peer reviewed. Neither is perfect, and both are filters of errors. Both are desirable stages of reaching the “truth”, and both should be used. However, the long time for formal work and response is limiting on issues where there is disagreement. The idea of presenting a formal report in a way that it can’t be independently verified is admission that the author is not confident the material will hold up, and not necessary with modern communication. I am author on a fair number of peer reviewed papers, and have frequently been a reviewer of others papers. I know the limits of peer review, and in the climate field, some of the most sloppy and poorly reviewed papers I have seen show the need for more openness.

Bam,
Look at the figures, especially the first. It shows the monthly values for the US. There are tables around for the top 10, but I did not have one on hand. The issue is not even if 1934 or 1998 is the top month, the issue is that the 30’s is just about as high as present in the US. The global variation shows recent temperatures are higher, and I won’t make a big point that the reliability of non US data makes the exact level less accurate. The issue was US data.

If you look at Greenland ice sheet data and several other long range ocean core data (such as Sargasso sea), the reagonal variation of temperature has varied up to 2 K in periods of 50 to 200 years several times. This included regions as large as most of the northern hemisphere. If the entire globe is included, the slightly different times for variation average out and lose the large swings. However, the limited temporal accuracy and limited coverage of data for times before thermometers and good coverage make the older data very limited in accuracy. There is no reasonable data set that shows the recent temperature are unusual based on the last few thousand years.

That’s what I thought, you goofed. I also note you changed your claim for “1930s was warmer” to “just about as warm”. I also checked for some rankings, and found this one:http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/a/HottestYears_2.htm
Sorry to say, but in the top 10 there are five/six from the last 10 years from that date (2007, meaning 2007 not included), and only two from the 1930s. When we take the top 25 we find EVERY year from 1998 to 2006 in the top 25, and only five of the 1930s. I know 2007 came in tenth or so, but can’t directly find the data for 2008 or 2009. However, considering the global average, I would not be surprised if they also came in the top 25.

yeah, Leonard is wrong all the time. he changed topic to annual records, and to the USA. and even that cherrypick was wrong.

here is what he said above on the other topic:

SOD,
The long drop from an interglacial period to a glacial period occurs over a few thousand years, but a drop large enough to be a killer can occur in decades to hundreds of years. The little ice age that killed the viking colony in about 1300 occurred in a short time. One large volcanic eruption occurring at the same time of a modest solar cooling or ocean current variations can flip the temperature quickly enough to change the situation in years or less.

first he was shifting the topic from the massive ice age drops, to smaller ones.

If you look at Greenland ice sheet data and several other long range ocean core data (such as Sargasso sea), the reagonal variation of temperature has varied up to 2 K in periods of 50 to 200 years several times. This included regions as large as most of the northern hemisphere. If the entire globe is included, the slightly different times for variation average out and lose the large swings. However, the limited temporal accuracy and limited coverage of data for times before thermometers and good coverage make the older data very limited in accuracy. There is no reasonable data set that shows the recent temperature are unusual based on the last few thousand years.

now he is trying to shift it from global to local events. but if you want to compare to local events in the past, you will need to compare modern (or future) local events as well!

and of course, he failed to link a graph.

—————–

and my simple question remains open, of course. which dataset shows cooling over the last decade???

Science itself does not ask “should” questions, but scientists do. At least, many scientists do, and at least in part due to their education. Many fields of science have courses discussing the relationship between science and society. The really good ones get into “should”-questions for one simple reason: to get future scientists to understand their ideas cannot be seen separate from societal influences. As scientists we can very easily experiment on human beings. But should we? Should we use x laboratory animals, or can we use fewer? We can throw our chemicals down the drain, but should we? What are the consequences?

And then there’s the societal questions to science: If we want to achieve A, what should we do? Science (through scientists) then answers a “should”-question, albeit sometimes in a rather vague way.

Guess we all have some classes that could teach us a thing or two, poetry probably being one of them for me.

For me though, an analogy serves to highlight a certain aspect by comparing it to something well known. By that nature it doesn’t capture all aspects, and even misses some important ones, eg intergenerational injustice.Perhaps you could give a good analogy for that aspect?

Nathan, I don’t know where I have written the contrary of what happened–that I started off as skeptical of the science and became a lukewarmer over time. Let me know–especially if it’s in one of my articles–and I’ll try and post a correction.

I think the right analogy is a medical condition exacerbated by behaviour that has societal implications–obesity is a good analogy from some points of view, but maybe something like alcoholism or drug addiction might capture the fact that others are impacted by individual choices about how one deals with the condition.

Thanks for your thoughts on the roles of blogs and peer review (July 26, 2010 at 17:32), some of which I agree with. Here’s my thoughts:

Peer review imposes standards of scholarship; blogs don’t. Peer review produces an authoritative record of scientific studies; blogs don’t. Scientific matters are eventually resolved in the peer reviewed literature; they are rarely, if ever, resolved on blogs. These are observations, not opinions.

So a working scientist, and anyone else who is truly interested, will regard the peer reviewed literature, in preference to blogs, as authoritative. As I said, you can always find someone saying what you want to hear on blogs.

Your credibility sufers the more you repeat blog-stuff and eschew (or denigrate) the peer reviewed literature. If you have a problem with a peer-reviewed paper, contact the author and discuss it, or write your own paper. You’re a published researcher, you know how to do that.

Well said, Pat Cassen (July 27, 2010 at 19:29). It amazes me (as a scientist-turned-bureaucrat in another field) that there are those who want to treat climate science differently from the rest of science. The same rules and the same standards for finding reliable information apply. Fortunately, my old fields, vaccine research and animal modeling of disease, doesn’t suffer from ideologues bent on discrediting fundamentally-sound research and trashing researchers. Oh wait, yes they do!

I certainly never said blogs are science or authoritative. They are strictly a source of back and forth discussion. However, those who don’t choose to discuss show lack of confidence. Also keep in mind that peer review or not, facts are facts. The peer review process is clearly a potentially good filter, but that is all. In the end, most peer reviewed papers are either ignored as irrelevant or shown to be false. Only time will tell the value of ideas and data. Anyone that counts papers rather than accomplishments is a fool.

It’s physics. It’s climate. We are right. You are wrong. If you do not… then the planet will die. Unless you pay.

What a waste.

I am adhering to my convictions now even more. I will teach my children accordingly. I will tell my friends and neighbours. I will use any forum in which I have any authority. And they are many. No CO2 induced climate change in my vicinity.

I am adhering to my convictions now even more. I will teach my children accordingly. I will tell my friends and neighbours. I will use any forum in which I have any authority. And they are many. No CO2 induced climate change in my vicinity.

Science cringes at the threat from Harry. Harry, like many an inventor of perpetual machines before him, will prove those physicists wrong, damn it!

“Nathan, I don’t know where I have written the contrary of what happened–that I started off as skeptical of the science and became a lukewarmer over time.”

I guess I doubted your position as I have never seen you blog that you doubted the basic science. In that case I’ll just have to take your word on it.

There’s only one more step then Tom! You are trending towards taking action to prevent CAGW… You just need to sort out in your head what it means to have CS of about 3C per doubling… Mayeb you should do some reading around the impacts that are expected?

Oh yeah, I keep asking various people (Mosher, Lucia etc) but am yet to see any real definition of what it is to be a ‘Lukewarmer’. It seems to be a term inveted by Mosher that doesn’t really mean anything…

Is it a qualitative or quantitative term? Because it sounds like marketing to me.

Leonard Weinstein: Most evolutionists decline to discuss with creationists. It’s simply no use. I can see the same with many climate scientists, who see nothing coming out of discussions with a whole bunch of so-called skeptics. I think Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke Sr have encountered quite a few of those in the comment section to their respective blogposts. It ranges from the complete irrational critics (hoax, conspiracy, and whatnot), to the so-called Dunning-Kruger afflicted (you are wrong, look at what I have done, and no, I won’t publish it in a journal), to the ideologically afflicted (maybe you’re right, but it costs too much).

There is no refusal to discuss with every critic, there is a refusal to discuss with critics who clearly do not have the insight to learn. Unfortunately, sometimes genuine, honest critics get lumped in with the larger group of irrational critics.

Bam,
The evolution vs. creation issue has nothing to do with climate science. I happen to be not religious, so you can guess my position on that. However, climate “science” as it presently is supported by you and many of the “climate scientists” is more like religion than science. You keep saying “I believe” with no real scientific supporting evidence. I have tried to debate based on the issues, and get a lot of nonsense back. The critical issue of the CAGW positions will be the FACTS. I pointed out there was no significant warming the last decade and got back some cherry picked dates showing there was. A smoothed curve (including prior data) shows it is not warming. However the clear dropping temperatures following the recent peaking from an El Nino, and predictions of several decades of cooling will put the issue to rest – no CAGW. The evolution/creation debate is being resolved by DNA and other measurement technologies. The CAGW debate will be resolved when no continued warming happens over a long enough time.

I have read many of the journal articles on AGW, and noticed that almost all show there has been warming the last 100 or so years, and this warming has effects on glaciers, animals and plants. I agree with those observations. They then say it is our fault, with no evidence for that claim. That is opinion, and not science. Obviously deforestation, dam building, farming practices and extensive city building has large local effects. That is not global climate effects. Once you separate fact from opinion, there is no falsifiable scientific claim supporting CAGW.

Bam,
By the way, I have degrees in Physics and Engineering. My ScD is in fluid mechanics and heat transfer. I have 48 years technical experience (NASA and NIA) and numerous peer reviewed publications. I have without doubt studied the global warming issue more than anyone on this blog and even started in accepting the claims of the problem as a reasonable position. I am more than qualified to peer review papers in that field, and found nothing written that actually supports CAGW. Do I think there has been a hoax, conspiracy, and whatnot? No. Do I think that what appeared to be a trend and resulted in over reaction by some concerned people, including some scientists, then backfired? yes. It is also true that when scientists and others take a strong position that then becomes an issue, there is often two (or more) sides that form, and arguments fly. The problem with the global warming issue is the very bad way the early scientific skeptics were treated by the press, by politicians, and by the scientists that had developed a stake in the issue with their reputation on the line. The early skeptics that were scientists were not hostile, the supporters of CAGW were. There are always on both sides of any issue some individuals that are bad acting, but this is not generally related to the scientists, but rather less technical individuals. Using the small number of these marginal individuals to show that the skeptics are bad is worse than wrong, as the bad behaviour of pro CAGW people was 100 times as intense. All skeptics, even those that accept AGW but not CAGW, are being called deniers, oil shills, etc. and worse. You should be ashamed to be associated with people that act that way

The evidence doesn’t back them up, the facts don’t back them up, the physics and observations don’t back them up. Yet they continue to present arguments without any of those things (using the same intellectually-dishonest tactics we all hate). When they get called out (time and again), they complain that we’re mean and that they’re victims.

The strategy is pathetic.

Leonard has laid out the usual denialist cards all along – witness the “CAGW”. Poor baby.

Replying to my comment “this byproduct of carbon burning is a prime forcing of ice loss,” you wrote: “black soot isn’t a feedback to increased CO2, but is an additional forcing…..agree that reduction in black soot is a worthy goal.” Maybe I was unclear. Ice loss is the feedback that black soot forces. In this case, limiting the forcing limits the feedback

My point that it may be more cost effective to focus on reducing the impact of known positive feedbacks has some support in the very latest literature. Read this article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an upcoming JGR study. Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson is quoted.

“Controlling the soot created by burning fossil fuels, like oil and coal, and from burning wood and dung may help to reduce Arctic ice loss and global warming faster than any other control option available.”

My purpose here is to explore ways to achieve fossil fuel replacement that do not depend on complex and/or punitive government policies which may not be soon enacted. I’d also like to move the discussion away from the science. That discussion is a delayer’s playground, as this thread demonstrates.

willard,
Real as in not models that lack much of the physics of the real world. Even the IPCC states model results are not predictions, but an effort to show possible trends due to selected parameters such as CO2 level and guessed feedback based on the approximations available.

Sorry Leonard, regardless of your impressive CV, your argumentation is less than impressive to me. You make large claims, but do not back them up with evidence. For example, you claim that the early skeptics have been dealt with horribly by a range of people, but you do not come with any specifics. Those specifics are needed. I myself cannot find any examples of early skeptics that have been dealt with horribly. Heck, I’m still surprised at the silk gloves that were used when Christy and Spencer made their embarrassing mistakes in the early days of the satellite record. And yet, an essentially inconsequential possibly(!) inappropriate use of short-centered PCA by a certain Mike Mann is being used to cry “fraud” up till this day!

And be careful with your “oil shills” comment: not too long ago I have seen a social network by John Mashey, and it is quite shocking to see how many of the so-called skeptical climate scientists are directly involved in various thinktanks with clear political ideologies. It’s much, much harder to find the opposite. It does not mean they are paid by oil companies, but it does mean they have openly taken *political* sides. Especially when those organisations throw out blatant distortions and sometimes even lies about the climate and climate scientists. For example, the SPPI has published a booklet by Watts and D’Aleo, making a provingly false claim, and included defamatory remarks about NCDC. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has also thrown false and defamatory remarks around. Both organisations have several so-called skeptic scientists involved, and they never ever apologised or disowned these lies.

1. Interglacials (plenty of evidence of AGW and significant temperature changes for even small changes in forcings)

2. Other rapid climate changes resulting in mass extinctions (of the last 4 mass extinctions, three can be related directly to rapid warming)

3. The known effects of the currently still limited climate change on various aspects of the biosphere (not necessarily as the only factor)

4. The fact that 2 degrees more is associated with at least 1 meter higher sea levels in palaeoclimatological analyses (but often more).

5. The known effects of high atmospheric CO2 concentrations on ocean life

All these aspects put considerably more likelihood on significant problems due to increased GHG concentrations than on the likelihood that warming will be very limited, or if not, that there hardly will be problems.

More precisely, burning carbon. Burning wood, dung, peat and biofuels also creates a lot of soot. Reducing soot is almost a separate issue in that, while replacing fossil fuel is a 35 – 60 year process, significant reductions of soot can begin now and far outpace reductions in carbon burning.

Replacing fossil fuel is still the vital long term goal. For the climate concerned the article I referenced earlier points to effective solutions that are not based on CO2 suppression or pricing schemes.

If CAGW is a theory or a set of theories, it should be couched in scientific terms.

If you can’t tell in scientific terms what the C amounts to in CAGW, you’re attacking something that might not refer to any system of theories that is studied by scientists, both from climate and other related fields.

Saying that scientific evidence is lacking for something that is not a scientific theory in the first place is an interesting stance, more so considering your prestigious background.

Questioning my understanding of “the” issue is irrelevant. The most straightforward reason is you had not made clear what is the issue you’re attacking.

Handwaving “CAGW” is not enough. Armwaving “IPCC has only models and are not real enough” might not have been subjected to due dilligence.

Personally, I do not see anything catastrophic in 2 meters of sea level rise, or lots of species dying. It is just a thing that happens. If such things happened in the past, I dont think it is such a bad thing that ‘we’ ’caused’ another tipping-point to tip this time.

You want the skeptics to define ‘C’ of the CAGW. I like your style – we need more of this open-mindedness.

Shub Niggurath:
“I am only pointing out
1) that this is a question of judgment, and is partly normative”
2) that such drastic changes occurred without human intervention or witness in the past”

Interestingly, the folks most at risk from a 2m SLR had very little to do with creating it; I’m sure their “judgment” would be quite different than yours, for both reasons.

That such events happened in the past without human cause doesn’t mean that human-caused analogies don’t matter. I gravely doubt that a jury would find a defense of “People have always died, so the murder of the victim isn’t that drastic” very compelling. Why do you?

If we’re to consider the contributions of Leonard Weinstein on Science of Doom, my guess is that talking about AGW should be enough. AGW might be stated as a scientific hypothesis. Unless we can add something related to catastrophe theory, the C is pure marketing fluff.

Let’s suppose the C in CAGW is more important than that. It now seems to leave out the AGW of the equation. Does that mean that AGW is now kosher?

It sounds to me like CEI’s talking point, which could be paraphrased as “AGW is not real; if AGW is real, we can’t know it; if we can know it, we can communicate it scientifically; if we can communicate it scientifically, there is no incentive to do so, i.e. it does not matter much.” Gorgias is proposed the same kind of reasoning a while ago. This line of argument almost suffices to prove that nothing exists.

One wonder how one can lose an argument, if he can use arguments of a form that can proves that nothing exists. Real skeptics always have an unloseable position. From an unloseable position, one can play indefinitely.

By contrast, scientists almost always lose. Sooner or later, almost all their hypothesis and theories get rejected. So when scientists facing skepticism, not only they have to play from an unwinneable position, they play against an opponent that can never lose. Impossible to lose a neverending audit ;-)

So no wonder why we endlessely comment and comment and comment and comment and comment and comment about the same or more of the same or more of the same.

Paul, Hansen laid out the reduce black carbon, methane, etc. path some years ago, but if you do the arithmetic what you find, as Hansen did, is that it buys time to shift over to a non carbon economy, not that it is a solution. See

Yes, Eli, it buys time to shift over to a non carbon economy. That makes it vital. The shift over will take time – 35 or more years – at even the fastest pace. Going after soot is a necessary step, a prerequisite for success.

So we have Hansen in 2000 and Jacobson in 2010 both favor eliminating soot to reduce global warming faster than any other control option available.” Isn’t that what you’re after?

Paul Kelly,
I think hydrocarbon sources are too valuable and limited to use for fuel (they are needed for plastic and chemicals), but since our (world) economy is locked into using it, we need to wean ourselves off. This will take a considerable time, and pushing before substitutes are properly developed would be worse than not. However, I am convinced that human activity is not a significant factor in global warming and will not be by 2100 or 2200. Pushing that issue rather than the energy and alternate use issue is destructive to supporting the right policies. I think cooling is eventually going to become a problem (but over a fairly long period). but not heating. I have a summary paper with my analysis on the AGW issue at:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dnc49xz_0fb228shr&hl=en
I also have speculated on one possible alternate solution to the energy problem (and another for the replacement for transportation fuel). I think combined nuclear and Solar could do the job, but nuclear is a hard sell. I speculated on another that is way far out BUT I AM CONVINCED IT IS PRACTICAL. It won’t be done however. It is at:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dnc49xz_44f67brtp&hl=en
One final comment. Most of the oceans are at about 4 degrees C. Any time the interglacial periods are active, the surface temperature rises a fair amount compared to the glacial periods, and the warmer water eventually warms lower levels some due to thermohaline currents. The net result is that sea level will always rise during an interglacial. It is not a step rise but a ramp. The sea level during the present interglacial has been rising fairly steadily the present holocene, and although the increase slows down and speeds up some, HAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ACCELERATED (there was a period of speed up then slowed back). If the holocene lasts long enough, sea level will rise. If there was a 2 degree rise in a short time (which will not happen), the time to affect sea level even a couple of meters would be many centuries. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will not melt faster, and glacier flow to sea would take many centuries.

Willard,
You can’t prove a hypothesis or theory, ever. You can support it with demonstrated falsifiable evidence, and if the skeptics can’t falsify any claims, eventually the hypothesis becomes promoted to theory, and eventually is accepted. Keep in mind we use Newtonian mechanics, but it has been falsified by Einstein’s relativity, so even falsified theories can be useful as long as the range of usefulness is specified. It is also true that if a hypothesis has several claims, even falsifying one falsifies the hypothesis. You do not need to falsify all claims. If you can develop an alternate hypothesis that does not need the falsified claim, you have a different hypothesis (or an admitted approximation with limited use). This does not favor the skeptic, it favors the facts. This is not a game for points where cheating helps, it is a search for truth. If you have a hypothesis that you want to be taken seriously, you should seek the most serious critics to try to catch flaws. If it holds up, that greatly strengthens it’s value. The global warming skeptics were the best chance AGW or CAGW advocates had for respectability, and the advocates blew it.

Leonard Weinstein:
“The global warming skeptics were the best chance AGW or CAGW advocates had for respectability, and the advocates blew it.”

Blaming the climate science community for the inanities of the “skeptic” community’s “arguments” is backwards. There’s no reason to respect or accept an argument that *isn’t* based on the facts, or that doesn’t take into account *all* the known facts and evidence, but that’s exactly what “skeptics” have offered. Without cherry-picking, without bullying (think Monckton and Watts), without intellectual dishonest, without game-playing, the “skeptics” have *nothing*.

And, truth be told, you’ve done the “skeptic” side of the issue no favors, Leonard. You’re just playing the same sad old games, and haven’t presented anything new or credible. Very boring and very sad.

Willard,
Re your comments: “It sounds to me like CEI’s talking point, which could be paraphrased as “AGW is not real; if AGW is real, we can’t know it; if we can know it, we can communicate it scientifically; if we can communicate it scientifically, there is no incentive to do so, i.e. it does not matter much.” Gorgias is proposed the same kind of reasoning a while ago. This line of argument almost suffices to prove that nothing exists.

One wonder how one can lose an argument, if he can use arguments of a form that can proves that nothing exists. Real skeptics always have an unloseable position. From an unloseable position, one can play indefinitely.”

These are not the true skeptics issues, so don’t hide behind them. It is simply put up or shut up with falsifiable evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis and show the difference from alternate hypothesis, and have the evidence not be falsified. The rest is fluff.

Guy’s like Smeardon, Christensen, Huybers, Zorita, (that dude from Wisconsin who’s published interesting things about the models who’s name I can’t remember) are the ones pressure testing things. McI and Id and the like are in a circle jerk. They won’t even show their white papers. Bunch of huff and puff. 5 year old tease. Yawn.

Derecho64,
Sea level varied over 100m in fairly recent times (beginning of the Holocene). Man and even polar bears did just fine. We have had electric lights, telephone automobiles, airplanes, etc just for about 100 years. We have personal computers, cell phones, etc., and have been even to the planets, with men even landing on the Moon within about 40 years (many people living now were around before that). Yet you are concerned that a sea level rise of a couple of meters over about 100 years is a possible super disaster comparable to nuclear war. First be assured the sea level rise over the next 100 years will be much less than 2 meter, and then be assured that if all human activity stopped right now, the rise would be about the same as that due to the worse case of AGW that is actually plausible. Take my word for it or not.

The discussion about soot brings back memories. I remember when some (not all) suggested we desperately needed to put soot on the Arctic to combat global cooling. Lets hurry up and do something before we are sure, since time is possibly short.

Derecho64,
I would love to see the “facts”. Please tell me. Bad critics do not help skeptics, they hurt their side. But if you side can’t overcome even the bad critics, it just shown you had nothing to stand up to criticism. You can’t possibly complain the skeptics had more favorable press, TV, radio, government positions, etc. I observe all of these and favorable AGW and CAGW exposure is 5 to 10 times or more than given to skeptics. Your failure is self inflicted.

Dereche
Without ‘catastrophic’, the warmists have nothing. The rest is meteorology and rose bloom dates and frog deaths. Do you have any idea how useless applied climate science is, without the catastrophism?

It’s interesting he points to a 5-10 times overrepresentation of AGW/CAGW exposure, considering that amongst climate scientists we’re talking a 100-1 overrepresentation of AGW/CAGW opinions. In other words, Leonard’s own argumentation shows that so-called skeptics are enormously overrepresented in the media!

Shub, a lot of people would soundly disagree with you that applied climate science only has value due to potential catastrophe. One of the reasons people are e.g. starting vineyards in Sweden are forecasts by climate scientists that the temperature in (South) Sweden are already good enough to grow grapes, and will get even better. In Australia, agricultural expansion also involves direct discussions with climate scientists. It does not make sense to start expanding in a region which is likely to get worse and worse for agricultural exploitation. In South America there are major discussions in certain regions on how to deal with the absence of significant melt water from glaciers, something that has been an important source of fresh water. Oh wait, that could be filed under “catastrophic”…

Leonard, your parroting of the Newsweek article isn’t doing much good to your credibility. Especially when in that same year Wally Broecker, someone with great authority in the climate arena, published a paper in Science predicting warming. And was remarkably accurate in his predictions, despite making a number of simplifications.

I’ll leave the “just fine” remark about humans during the last interglacial for what it is. That’s going to be a normative discussion, where “surviving” may be considered “just fine”. Because that’s all we know: humans survived.

Bam,
In case you were not aware, grapes were grown in northern Europe during the MWP. It was the LIA that stopped that. The weather in most of the southern hemisphere has been some of the the coldest in recorded history recently, with plenty of snow. If there is no meltwater, that is because it was too cold to melt, not due to loss of snow or ice forming. You truly have your facts wrong.

The point of the newsweek article was to point out that many people jump on issues before the facts are known, not a statement that it was a view held by all.

The question of how to support (not prove) a hypothesis is straightforward. Make statements of details that would occur only if the hypothesis is true, such as a “hot spot” in the mid troposphere” in the tropics, or increased absolute humidity in the upper troposphere causing feedback, or showing the recent temperature rate of increase and level are unprecedented. These and many other claims were made, and not one is clearly supported. Some are still being disputed, but some claims have been shown to be just wrong. The issue of feedback is not resolved, and the real world does not agree with the claims. The hypothesis is busted. Keep in mind that only one critical claim needs to be falsified, not every one, so the fact that not a single claim is clearly supported is more than just disproof.

Are you shifting goalposts, Shub? My examples do not prove your point. You claimed applied climate science only has value when making catastrophic predictions. At least the first two do not involve any “catastrophe”, but are of importance for business (and to some extent policy) decisions. There are many more such examples. Considering Bart is Dutch, he probably can tell you a few things about how being able to get some idea of rising sea levels is of importance to their future plans regarding dykes and the like. If you start making a list per country, you will see a LOT of examples where knowing how climate will change (or even, what kind of climate there is and the expected variability) is of great importance. More importantly, you will also see how climate change will require societal changes, which are bound to cost money, either directly or indirectly. Even without such aspects being necessarily labeled as catastrophic, governments would have discussed whether emissions should be reduced. Of course, the expected impacts and the costs of mitigation will be taken into account in any decision to take action.

I also like to point out this list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_agreements
where there are many intergovernmental treaties related to issues that are hardly ever framed as “catastrophic”, and I would not be surprised if some have hardly had any media coverage. For example, the treaty to protect antarctic seals. Heck, even the CFCs ban was hardly ever discussed with any catastrophic predictions. People DID point out that skin cancer was very likely to increase in number, but you’ll have to dig deep to find many saying “we’re all going to die!” (which doesn’t mean there was no one saying that).

Leonard, I am very much aware of the “but there were vineyards in England” argument. The only time there was no wine production in England was after WW II (errrr…..a bit late to be related to the LIA, no?). From the evidence collected by vinologists, there currently are vineyards well above the most northern line of vineyards during the RWP and MWP. There is no clear evidence there ever was a vineyard in Sweden before the 1990s, only some rumours. The fact you come with this argumentation shows to me that your sources are quite questionable (and I point again to the Newsweek article)

I also repeat my request to you to provide evidence that the early skeptics were treated poorly (do note I will be gone for the next 4-5 days, so I’m quite curious whether you will answer).

And, oh dear, the Southern Hemisphere being much colder and having more snow…we have another who does not know that snow is a poor proxy for cold. People in Scandinavia will tell you snow usually falls when it is NOT as cold. And the anomaly pictures I have seen show that the Southern Hemisphere is NOT colder than normal.

Then the predictions: I do not know which ‘prediction’ you believe has been shown false, but if it’s the tropical tropospheric hotspot, you are claiming there has been no warming at all. It’s NOT a fingerprint of AGW, it’s a fingerprint of WARMING. And that it is warming is most definately incontrovertible.

And finally: melt water is, of course, an issue during SUMMER. I was not talking about current situations, and anyone thinking I was has serious problems comprehending simple English. With all those issues, I suddenly find myself making a rapid jump towards derecho64’s position on you. I won’t call you denier, you simply have fallen for a lot of false claims, and have a rather high confidence in your own knowledge.

Dear all,
taxes will not change the mindsetting of people, it will encourage them to find ways which were not foreseen in the taxes. It will not change their behaviour. The very detailed legislation which passed nowadays does not succeed in the prevention of loopholes, it merely creates them. The more detailed you write down your legislation, the easyier it becomes to evade it.

The tax is meant to punish “bad” energy consumption on one hand, and encourages to use energy from “green” sources on the other hand.

Since I have no intention to reduce my energy consumption, I have started to look into the legislation and the implementation of it in he rules. There are many opportunities for people with some technical insight, engineers, to profit from the sillyness of the legislators beyond your imagination.

I will and am doing this.

And I do not care for the planet, since I am convinced that what we are experiencing now as global warming has been seen on this planet for more than 3 billion years. I at that time I could not pay for its remediation. And now I will not. I will benefit from the silly regulations that are imposed upon us, without living to their silly intentions.

I really do not understand why it would be such an offensive deed when one looks after their tax spending. I want to know where my tax goes to, for what purpose it is used. If it is a purpose that I do not support (and they are many), I ask myself: can I avoid this tax, this contribution to something I do not endorse? Abortion is one such thing. I can not prevent my tax going into funding abortion. Therefore I am guilty of the crime of killing an unborn.

But for something completely different: plants are having the time of their life. Excess CO2 means above normal growth, photosynthesis and oxygen production, all the while fixating CO2. Mother Nature nurtures her first line of production: plants. The only natural way the energy of the sun can be captured and stored.Plants prosper with higher CO2 and higher temperatures. C4 plants do it even more efficient.

Why should we limit CO2? Plants can cope with levels 10 times as high as we have now in the atmosphere. Since plants are the first line of energy fixation, CO2 increase might be a blessing. Humans can endure 0.3% of CO2 in their air, which is 1000 times higher than it is now, as was shown by submarininer crews.

All in alll, your crusade against CO2 is a Don Quichote experience. Better kill those windmills.

“Bam,
You clearly are not following the facts. Australia is at typical conditions. It goes through dry and wet, warm and cold spells and correct records show it is about at average conditions.”

I suggest you actually look more carefully at the Australian data. There’s no point in just avergaing the whole of Australia in this conext. It’s a big place. The south of Australia is sufering a very prolonged drought – the longest and driest in our history- that has coincided with the highest summer temps in our history. The north of Australia is ‘enjoying’ higher rainfall (that results in extensive flooding). Adding the two together and saying it’s just normal is not sensible.

Living in Australia and experiencing the recent changes to our climate (and it is our climate that has changed, not just the weather) it’s really strange to hear people say that it’s perfectly normal.

What has happened (and I am sure you are interested in the details) is that it appears that the Hadley Cell persists over the south of Australia through winter, rather than drifting northwards. I am sure if you look at a synoptic chart today you will see a high pressure system in or near the Great Australian Bight, this system used to be higher up (perhaps around Alice Springs). This prevents low pressure systems drifting northwards and bring rain to the south of Australia.

Bart, the political situation in our own country is not helping when it comes to “The risk of postponing corrective action to a gradually deteriorating situation”

In the Netherlands, general elections were recently held and as a result a new right wing party emerged as one of the biggest political players. It is currently in negotiation for the government coalition. The following text is translated directly from their political manifesto (‘partijprogramma’):

“The subsidized Green movement has to come up with new issues all the time in order to maintain the flow of subsidies. Everytime they are helped in this by their henchmen at the public broadcasting organisation. Thus we bounce from ‘acid rain’ to ‘hole in the ozon layer’ to the Brent Spar affair. The latest hype is called global warming

The climate is changing, of course, but it always does. Man cannot set the earth’s temperature any higher or lower. What’s more, the global temperature has been declining since 1998. Meanwhile socialists employ these climate theories to do what they always want: higher taxes, feelings of guilt and a lot of regulation -while only 3 to 4 percent of all CO2 emission is produced by man. The rest is produced by nature itself (vulcano’s, oceans and swamps). We have to stop panicking about the earth warming and we have to stop giving money to an unproven climate hype. Eventually we should get rid of European climate commitments. We are against capturing and storing CO2 underground.”

Dr Weinstein,
I concur with your reasonable opinions in this thread.
The AGW hypothesis hangs on the assumption that the recently observed GW is unusual, at least when considering recent 1000-2000 years.
There is a lot of research done in Alps – about glaciers. For exaple paper:
Mangini et al.: Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr froma y180 stalagmite record, in: Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235, 2005.

Taken from the page: http://mittelalterlichewarmperiode.blogspot.com/
There is a lot of references to other papers, that present DATA (with interpretation). The papers do show that MWP was at least as warm as present time, and LIA was quite cold. And the Roman Optimum Climate was even warmer than MWP. And the culprit is shown (Mangini) – solar activity (C14 isotope ratio, related to the solar activity).
So maybe nothing really unusual in presently observed climate variability.

The blog started with something different – we might have an illness, and how to cure it.
I personaly think that we have to produce sufficient amount of energy – for the developing world in particular. I think that the economy points to the nuclear power – thermonuclear (under development) and a bit modified traditional (Liquid Thorium Reactor – to be comercially developed from test programme in ’60ties).The nuclear would cut CO2 emissions significantly, and most important – they would provide a lot of energy to the developing world.
I am astonished that people are willing to put hundreds of billions of euro into Cap&Trade while ITER project (fussion) is financed in coming 20 years on the level of 10-15 billions of euro, and LTR might need much less financing.
USA has build during WW2 the whole nuclear industry – in 4 years, in 8 years they put a man on the Moon. If the excess of CO2 killed us then wouldn’t we stop immediately emmisions of CO2? And if we do not want to return to caves due to the lack of energy then nuclear seems to be the most reasonable solution. To be developed in a crash program, like Apollo or Manhattan. Since it is not an option for politicians then I presume that they do not believe the excess of CO2 will fry us.

Technically speaking, I am also astonished by bio-fuels. Their production requires water, pesticides, fertilizers. The water that is needed in the developing world for people and for food production. Producing bio-fuels on large scale may lead toi ecological catastrophes as in ex-soviet republics near Aral Sea – but then they produced cotton – not looking on consequences regarding water usage (dry Aral Sea), saltation of soils and and pesticide pollution.

I’m taking action to spur energy transformation. My reasons are economic and environmental. These reasons and the actions based on them are not affected in any way by climate science or climate concerns.

I do not dispute climate science nor diminish its concerns. I think it is beyond doubt, however, that climate is an impossibly poor basis for policy or the measurement of its success.

Why energy? A lot of us boomers grew up with the promise of 21st century energy transformation. It’s rather exciting that the technology is finally here.

Maybe you’ll like this presentation to explain the difficulties we’re having deciding what to do or not do:

Here’s the lead:

> Laurie Santos looks for the roots of human irrationality by watching the way our primate relatives make decisions. A clever series of experiments in “monkeynomics” shows that some of the silly choices we make, monkeys make too.

What technology? I must have missed something. My reasons are economical and not environmental, since I think CO2 is a minor factor in global warming..

@hveerten:
Wil je dit forum in een PVV bashing site veranderen? Zal Bart niet goedvinden.
Do you want to change this formum into a PVV (polical party for freedom) bashing site? Bart will not allow you to do so.

I think that the world needs energy and techologies that optimises the use of energy in daily life, in agriculture and in industry.
I wonder, how wind & solar techologies can be reliable sources of energy supply and how they can be sustainable without huge subsidies.
Backup systems, energy transport network, resilience to peak loads – many of these things I saw discussed in IEEE puplikations/journals/magazines.
We are burned by 3Miles and Chernobyl accidents. But I think that the modern nuclear technology and the nuclear technology just behind the fence offers huge power supply and diversification from traditional energy sources.
Technically these solutions are feasible. However, they would totally reshape the present world – total shift of power wielded by finance connected to present sources of energy and to the emerging new “green” sources of energy.

Once IPCC decides to use real science to evaluate risk, cost and benefit of all options from doing nothing to the radical wet dream of +/- 50% CO2 output reduction, then we can debate the utility of corrective action. You warmanistas scream about science and peer review except when it comes to the “should” question. Then we can rely on environmental interest groups funded by carbon credit traders to tell up that the tipping point is around the corner.

This thread is, for me, another illustration of how insistence that climate be the antecedent of action postpones any action.

Offhand I can’t think of anyone serious who has condemned Obama for pushing forward higher fuel economy standards for vehicles sold in the US, for pushing alternative energy resources, etc.

But unless we get agreement on the fact that global warming is a very real threat, we’ll never sufficiently decarbonize the economy until we’ve burned every last bit of coal we can economically extract from the ground. Peak oil comes sooner, which will lead to a slow decrease in consumption until economically worthwhile oil eventually runs out, but we’re talking decades at least.

So I don’t see that aceptance of global warming need be the antecedent to piecemeal action, but I don’t see how this need can be avoided if we’re to take the coordinate worldwide action needed to significantly decarbonize the global economy.

Hint: The IPCC studiously avoids policy prescriptions. Go blast politicians for making lousy policy, not the IPCC, and leave the science out of it. You’ve got your anger misdirected, as so many “skeptics” do.

Derecho64, the IPCC proclaims itself to be policy neutral. In practice neither it as an institution nor its members as individuals achieve that noble goal. As I’m sure you’re aware, Rajendra Pachauri has been extremely prescriptive in his language on numerous occasions, and has repeated the same bullet points often enough to insure it’s not accidental.

Neither of the policies you mention are climate based. CAFE standards have been around longer than climate concerns as have subsidies for alternatives.

I’m afraid you’re going to wait a very long time for coordinated worldwide action to decarbonize the global economy. Piecemeal is the reality. That’s not a bad thing. There is no grand globally constructed action for replacing carbon fuels, but it will happen through the aggregate of millions of individual actions.

You hope for some unknown critical mass of people to see the risk you see. After more than twenty years of published science, IPCC and COP, who is yet to be persuaded? The climate concerned are at a crossroads. They must decide if it is more important reach a goal by acceding to others who share their desire for energy transformation but not their climate concerns; or, to win a debate over who’s reason is better.

Basically, China and India companies produce purposely high amounts of HFCs to later destroy it. For the destructions they are paid within CDM programme (15 Euro/tonne); often they do not produce anything else of value. National and international banks/governments are involved in the CDM programme, supervised by UN. Governments and banks are involved, so the comission has found no need to put the investigation of the matter on high priority.

This shows how all the Cap & Trade, carbon credits & offsets will be corrupted.
The affair of DSB or Transfigura show how difficult it is to enforce rules when big money is involved.
In new proposed schemas trillions of euros will be flowing – and I cannot imagine a system that wil be resilient to corruption and misuse. Of course in practice. On paper it will be perfect.

AR4 serves just as a justification and scientific authorityfor financial schemas that are already set – up and operating. Carbon Exchanges, subsidies, new bussinesses and opportunities. BP has already called itself Beyond Petrolum, as I recall :).
One gentleman said in front of senate commission “I know where my mouth is”. I would say that gentlema’s apostolic activity to stop CO2 emmisions and save the Earth are coming in this aspect rather close to lobbying in interest of his own bussiness.

As for Dr Pachuari prescriptive policies.
Jus one quite old example:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution
About emissions from maritime shipping:
“Contacted about the contents of the report, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, said: “This is a clear failure of the system. The shipping industry has so far escaped publicity. It has been left out of the climate change discussion. I hope [shipping emissions] will be included in the next UN agreement. It would be a cop-out if it was not. It tells me that we have been ineffective at tackling climate change so far.”
”
I believe you can google more by yourself.
Of course, no one would ask dr Pachuari opinion if he was not IPCC chairman. And he does not distance himself from IPCC when he expresses his for sure privately harboured views (as in the linked article).

Neither of the policies you mention are climate based. CAFE standards have been around longer than climate concerns as have subsidies for alternatives

Yes, Paul, that was my point. And, yes, of course CAFE standards were around before Obama, otherwise he would’ve been unable to *increase* mileage standards as opposed to *impose* new ones.

My point is that piecemeal efforts like this are and will be insufficient, no matter how welcome they may be.

I’m afraid you’re going to wait a very long time for coordinated worldwide action to decarbonize the global economy.
…
You hope for some unknown critical mass of people to see the risk you see.

Actually, I’ve pretty much given up hope. I’m being realistic. Piecemeal isn’t sufficient.

We don’t really need coordinated worldwide action, to be honest, agreement on agressive action by the EU, US, China, India and Russia would probably do it for now, at least.

But I don’t think we’ll get a reasonable climate bill in the US during Obama’s administration. His position in the senate will be worse next session, and of course if he wins a second term he’s immediately a lame duck with diminished clout…

“The IPCC has the responsibility of providing policy makers with objective scientific and technical findings that are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. ”

However, I never said IPCC was proscriptive, rather that the policy “science” was garbage. Nice try at a strawman victory.

Belief in the face value of sophisticated bureaucratic semantics is either naive or self-serving. A realpolitik reading of the WG III mandate is that proscriptions are pre-determined and the “objective scientific and technical findings” are manufactured to support a menu of politically correct “policy relevant” recommendations.

I was not aware plays with ITER. Some 8 years ago I read in IEEE Control Magazine about tokamak fusion (ITER) – practically plasma modelling and control, plus material technology. The biggest problem was funding – USA withdrawn at this moment (3 bln USD requested). It delayed the program. And for me it has shown what is at stake – control over reliable and abundant sources of energy. These 20 bln euro in 20 years – they are peanuts, if one gets working 600 MW power plant. From that moment I see the problem not as provision of people with best technical solutions and energy, but as financial control of energy markets, and general, the world economy.
Papers from Alps debunk Hockey Sticks and spagettis, so we are rather left with natural climate variations.
After reading Marcel Leroux, about climate and meteorology, I have also some opinion about modellers of weather & climate (I am also a modeller of dynamical systems).
I believe Copernicus would not get research grant if the present system worked in 16. century.

All this AGW is rather about money and power, unfortunately, because there are a lot of needs in society around.

@ Harry,
And I am all the time wondering, why socially-conscious people blindly subscribe to plans that will make rich people from Carbon Exchanges, from new energy sectors, from large multinationals (they have money and technologies, for large projects, like Capture and Storage), from banks investing all carbon offsets, and corrupted 3rd world politicians.
All the time I am thinking, for what sins they want to repent…

Because climate will go its own way, while the money and the power will flow the way from most of us towards the chosen…

Paul, I was about to second dho-gaza’s point. Pushing energy transformation is different from arguing the science, though, and the numbers and future may be on less solid ground. If well-supported facts get challenged time and time again by zombie lies, how will energy transformation fare in the face of Old Oil and Old Coal?

Part of me wants to just sit back with a tub of popcorn and watch the future unfold, but I have a granddaughter.

OK, I just found the anti-dho-gaza thread. For the energy transformers like Paul – I wish you well. We tried this in 1979, but the path of lesser resistance was “morning in America”. We still have lots of coal, which will remain a big part of tomorrow’s path of least resistance.

> If well-supported facts get challenged time and time again by zombie lies, how will energy transformation fare in the face of Old Oil and Old Coal?

I second Paul Kelly’s admonition. Trying to kill zombie lies only enlivens them. It wastes valuable space and time to promote well-supported facts.

There is no need to call what can be considered a zombie lie “a zombie lie”. The mere presence of well-supported facts and reasoned arguments should shows how zombie lies are zombie lies. Promoting well-supported facts must lead to action, or else all fails.

No lie can prevent someone from doing something. Nobody thought that people would get into recycling. It just happens out of the natural good faith of people.

There is no secret conspiracy, that is how politics rules the bureaucratic machine. Look at the BS the USEPA puked up during the Bush administration. Most scientists with government funding don’t sneeze without permission.

I like your and Dhogaza’s mature “hold my breath and turn blue until I get my way” approach. Neener, neener, neener. Very fitting for the tipping-point fear-monger drones. Next you will be clicking your ruby slippers three times while repeating “there’s no place like home…”

Willard:

People will do lots of easy things if the lie they swallow eases first-world wealth guilt. That’s why recycling is so popular. It’s easy and makes you feel good. That’s how municipalities sell recycling… the good feelings resulting from pretending to do the right thing that requires little effort.

Recycling (except Al cans and newspaper) actually causes more environmental damage than throwing most of it away and is only economically viable by government subsidies. Sounds just like the AGW and prostate cancer “cures”

You’re saying that “recycling (except Al cans and newspaper) actually causes more environmental damage than throwing most of it away.” Backing up that claim is necessary before concluding it’s recycling is based on a lie. Arguing that it’s a lie is a bit more complicated than arguing that it is not true, incidentally.

By talking about government subsidies, you’re trying to coatrack a pet subject of yours that is not relevant to the discussion.

Willard: in our area, recycling is a qualified success, but getting recycling rates higher is difficult. Even so, there is resistance expressed in local opinion sites, and in Howard’s post. What you see as an obvious point becomes an argument for some.

Howard has a point, though. Separating waste (especially when the municipality supplies the containers and picks up the waste) is not onerous, yet there is resistance. Imagine what happens when actions impinge on people’s lives and people have to accommodate changes. Opinion may favor action, but so far the political landscape (where in the US a 60-40 majority is needed in the face of entrenched opposition) does not.

The common goal may be energy independence, but conservation faces opposition and some see the path instead s “drill, baby, drill” and using our coal resources. The arguments against the science (which include points that are repeatedly refuted) provide political cover to postpone corrective action.

I like to focus on energy transformation because it brings together otherwise disparate groups around the common goal of replacing fossil fuel. Does anyone not think we’d be better off arguing about the how rather than the why.

Optimism or pessimism is a choice. Taking personal responsibility or hoping someone else imposes a solution is also a choice. Many are willing to pay more in the form of taxes or carbon pricing. Well, why wait? I’ve come up with a way for individuals to participate in replacing fossil fuel. Of course, it isn’t the whole solution. It’s a step in the right direction. I encourage everyone to visit here and get involved.

Paul, I followed your second link and what a nice surprise! Way back in the early 80s I used to run a comedy club, and James Wesley Jackson was frequently featured there. If you talk to him soon, tell him I said hi.

I am happy to focus on how and actually believe the why to be irrelevant, as there will be approximately as many whys as people consulted on the issue.

Derecho64, I don’t care what Howard believes. I don’t care what you believe. Are there initiatives that you and Howard could work together that would help the environment in general and reduce the threat from greenhouse gases in particular?

Howard, is there anything you would support? (For example, work on a smart grid?) Derecho64, is there anything you would support that was not part of a global initiative?

We have what you want to have in place in the Netherlands. We have the collection of every type of waste imaginable: I have 5 containers to use to separate my waste. The last invention of the silly beuarocrats: the separate collection of all plastic waste. All plastics are to be collected in special bags, which are collected by dedicated teams with a dedicated truck every two weeks. Plastics are: PVC, PE-HD, PE-LD, PP, PET, PA, PS, laminations of these types. The only one that can be recycled economically is PET. One single PVC bottle can ruin 1 cubic meter of PET: it is not food grade after that. So now we are building our own separation units, since all our plastic waste goes to Germany for processing. Every two weeks I have two full bags, weighing about 1 kg each, which do not contain any PET.

And I forgot to mention: the rest is incinerated, as it was before. But now we have the additional cost of separation, collection, transport, selection and incineration. One kg of plastics has around the same energy content as 1 l of diesel fuel. On my waste the truck can drive 200m, which is about the distance between my home and the next. Where is the benefit? I left out the depreciation of the truck, the wages of the three!! men needed to collect the plastics. A shovel ready project to provide billions of green jobs? Collecting waste?

Smart grid, nuke, sure. Wind and solar have their place, but are not real solutions. Fusion is not happening (it’s always 40-years away), but there are other promising nuke options that are already dead in the water because of phony green environmental propaganda.

I would like to see coal phased out because of mercury and particulates, not CO2. The first world needs to take the lead on a Manhattan project on energy. Unfortunately we spent that treasure on Iraq, Afghanistan, AIG, GM and Goldman Sachs. Also, the CO2 fetish is a money pit diverting money from real science and engineering.

How many billions of subsidies do the old-fashioned fuel industries suck out of governments every year, the USA particularly? This money is already being spent on declining fuel sources. Why not reallocate it more logically?

I’m skeptical about climate science but agree that we need to be figuring out how to economically replace oil and coal asap. Coal for health reasons and oil for geopolitical and economic reasons. Lomborg has been pushing this approach for years. We need to be pushing battery R&D as fast as possible. We need to be building nuclear power plants. We need to be pushing smart, convenient, comfortable bus service for commuters. We need to be pushing telecommuting. The tax credits for insulating and weather proofing your house are awesome.

The key thing is don’t waste huge amounts of money by cutting over to a technology before it is financially viable. Do spend the money on research to get technologies viable as soon as possible.

Finally you are shedding the cloak under which you have been hiding: Israel is the culprit! But maybe your nick gave it away long ago.

With MOX, Thorium reactors, proliferation is no issue: there is no material inside these reactors which can be used to produce an atomic bomb. The contaminating isotopes of elements different from U and Pu prevent a rapid development of nuclear chain reaction. It is most obvious from the two failed NORK atomic tests, that you need to purify the metal to the single fissable isotope. If you leave more than 5% of Pu 239 present, you will get a fizzle.

Finally you are shedding the cloak under which you have been hiding: Israel is the culprit! But maybe your nick gave it away long ago.

Israel is not “the culprit”. But it is true that she has roughly 100 nuclear weapons, and that the United States tacitly pretend she has none.

How is stating facts the equivalent of “shedding the cloak under which I have been hiding”?

BTW, I’m German-Dutch, of Methodist upbringing, and my nick has nothing to do with my upbringing, ethnicity, or personal beliefs. It is a type of trap used to trap raptors for banding and radio/satellite telemetry. We use mistnets, dho gazas, and bownets. I use the nick “dho gaza” because that trap optimizes capture efficiency with both raptor and lure bird safety. This, not hatred of Israel, is why the dho gaza is my favorite trap when working in the field.

Any short-term boost in nuclear power isn’t going to be based on any of the possible thorium fuel-cycle potential technologies. There are many problems to be solved.

Of course, I’m sure Harry is going to claim that he knows better than the scientists and engineers involved in researching this technology, just as he knows more about physics that those who do atmospheric physics, and just as he knows more about my ethnic background and political beliefs than I do.

I’m not inherently anti-nuclear, in fact, in the early days I was the opposite. I’ll stand by my statement that the industry here in the US, at least, deserved everything they got due to their dishonesty. Not much different than what we’re seeing with BP and the Gulf (and, yes, I believe undersea drilling could be made much safer, and even more strongly, could’ve been much safer and much better response resources stockpiled in the past).

I assume that since you are a biologist involved with bird trapping that you are as knowledgeable about climate, nuclear, whatever as I am?

Ridiculing me does not serve your purpose.

MOX is in use and ready for commercial application, only certain countries (USA) do not allow reprocessing of used fuel elements, they prefer to have them sitting around in water basins, ready for terrorists to steal them. With Yucca Mountain closed before it came to use, this situation will only get worse.

I assume that since you are a biologist involved with bird trapping that you are as knowledgeable about climate, nuclear, whatever as I am?

I know enough not to call someone an anti-semite based on their internet handle, and that alone makes me far, far more intelligent than you.

You’re a bigot, and your call-out confirms it.

But the main reason I’m more knowledgeable about climate is the fact that you parade your absolute ignorance, comparable to astrology or homeopathy, in public so we can judge your almost unbelievable ignorance.

If you’re right, you’ll wake up tomorrow, and your computer and car won’t work. This is how much of physics you must overturn to support your ridiculous level of anti-science.

I guess I’ve missed your apology for labeling me an anti-semite for no reason whatsoever?

Mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, is nuclear fuel containing more than one oxide of fissile or fertile materials. Specifically, it usually refers to a blend of oxides of plutonium and…

So it’s essentially a second-stage technology, requiring separation of plutonium.

Of course, the obvious proliferation issue is essentially the same as establishing large-scale breeder technology: once you’re basing a bunch of your energy production on plutonium, there are multiple paths to diverting plutonium to weapons production.

I am an electronics engineer who makes a living of repairing computers, television sets and integrated electronics in cars. Not much physics in there that I can not master. Also software problems are no issue.

But still, I am impressed with your CV. I humbly thank you for your omniscient answers to my questions and doubts.

Harry, could you please show us where dhogaza says he is ‘anti-semite’. And if you did not notice in the heat of the moment, he is clearly being sarcastic in his post at 06:36.

Anyhow, ho hum, western Russia burns, Pakistan floods, most of USA suffers under extreme heat warnings et cetera. Mother nature just does not care for our bickering, she simply responds to the physics of radiative transfer, and we keep turning up the thermostat. Aren’t we humans smart…..? Not.

Even television repairmen can get a PhD or an engineer’s degree.
I have both.
And I do repair things for a living.

And I can help you with your rotting porch.

Repairing it is no option. Replace it with new wood, carefully selected.
Try to use some good, impregnated wood with copper and chromium salts. They will last forvever.
Or, if you do not like copper and chromium, like I do not want them, you can go for some really though woods, Bankiray, teak (cheaper but not half as good) Wenge (very expensive, very durable, nice black wood).

Climate science hasn’t lost any credibility because of the scientists. You’re ignoring the campaign of FUD sponsored by Big Carbon, who perceives that their tens of billions in profits are threatened by the science and scientists. That’s why they’ve engaged in a smear and slur campaign, probably using illegal acts to further their cause of profits-uber-alles.

You’d be correct if the risk of postponing corrective action were low. Most evidence points to the risk being high. In the medical analogy, you’re advocating not following the treatment suggested by doctors, and leave the health risks for later to deal with. Since “later” in the climate sense doesn’t involve you personally, it offers an easy way out perhaps.

Derecho64, I can tell you that the recent coverage in the blogosphere (there has been fairly little in MSM) is not the result of any campaign. I was there. No money was flying around. No talking points were being issued. No calendars were consulted.

It was just a bunch of people with weblogs who disagreed with the way things have been going and what people like you were saying. And there was a vigorous and corresponding bunch of people with weblogs who felt the same way you do.

Now you can make stuff up about Koch Brothers and the like–they give money to conservative thinktanks, true, but its completely irregardless of climate concerns, as I’ve documented at my website–but that’s broadbrush conservative vs liberal yapping.

But there is no recent and effective campaign promoting Fear (which is the schtick from your side) Uncertainty (y’all are still convinced) and Doubt (which would just be too scientific).

There are too many posts and comments documenting the incredible money advantage your ‘side ‘ has when it comes to funding climate messages for me to believe you take this seriously. So I’m forced to assume that you’re just hand-waving, trying to change the subject.

Who paid the hackers to steal the emails and other files from CRU, Tom? Who would benefit from having scientists smeared and FUD created about the science? Have you tracked down that real story, instead of the “Climategate” nonsense, Tom?

Why not?

Oh, and for FUD, that’s the bread-and-butter of climate denialists. If they didn’t have that (leavened with lots and lots of lies, deception, and intellectual dishonesties of all sorts), they’d have nothing.

The money that goes to climate science isn’t for “funding climate messages”; it goes to research. It’s also inflated by lumping in the costs of expensive satellites. We’re always hearing “follow the money” from denialists; why don’t you follow the real money, Tom? Perhaps that’s too much of an inconvenient truth and hits a little too close to home. How much have you made from your little book?

Derecho, I’m pretty sure the files were leaked by a CRU employee. I have some specific reasons for believing that. But I’m really curious as to how your scenario would play out. Would one of the Koch brothers, or me, or Monckton, go approach random people at CRU and offer them money? For what? Would we know what to ask for? I think your scenario sounds a bit bizarre, actually.

As for money going to climate messaging rather than research, there’s a lot of it floating around. Certainly more than the amounts donated to skeptic organisations. By an order of magnitude, actually.

And that’s been discussed to death and doesn’t really interest me, as I have no objection to financial support for organisations putting out a message you agree with. On either side.

Let’s take my book, for example. It was not sponsored by any third party. We began writing it on December 7 and finished on January 13. Mosher and I worked about 100 hours a week on the project during this period, with no idea at all if we would ever sell a copy. Well, I knew I could lean on my brother to buy one, but otherwise…

We published it on January 13, mistakes, warts and all. We sold our first copy the same day. We received no money at all until March.

Where is the great climate conspiracy in that? Have you submitted similar requests for audits to James Hansen or Joe Romm?

As for the riches of authorship, our experience has been pretty much what you’d expect–the book was far more successful than our best hopes, and it is still selling. But neither of us has been able to quit our day job.

So where did we do something unethical? What did we do wrong? You might not like what we wrote (although you would almost certainly be surprised by parts of it), but what wrong thing did we do?

And where is there any indication of some Fear Uncertainty and Doubt brigade taking concerted action to frustrate the scientific truth?

I assume you suggest to make cheap electric energy available to the currently underdeveloped areas of the planet?

Which to my opinion, would imply the building of coal fired electric plants, like the one that has been sanctioned in South Africa?

In that case I am with you. And I would like to add that nuclear is the ultimate solution for the midterm (say until 2100) to bridge the gap between declining carbon fired units and possible new technologies (Paul Kelly?) But then we need to take action and start building those plants, both coal and nuclear. Forget solar, wind, they are never capable to deliver steady supply of electricty.

You must dimension the wiring connecting your solar or wind farm to the grid on its nominal capacity. Good engineering practice says that you overdimension by a factor of two to be safe for any unforeseen situation. (!00% procent reserve). Since both wind and solar are producing on average at around 5 to 10% of the installed capacity, we have a waste of the installed grid components in terms of 1000%. In the Netherlands, the national grid was on the verge of a total collaps when the Germans produced too much wind power, for which they did not have the necessary high power transport lines (They were blocked by the GReens) Power was rerouted through the Dutch grid to the south of Germany, nearly succeeding in a total collapse of the Dutch grid.

I’m pretty sure the files were leaked by a CRU employee. I have some specific reasons for believing that.
Would you like to share your specific reasons with the Norfolk police?
Moreover, are you willing to share all your email correspondence two weeks before and say, 4 weeks after the hack you’ve had with your ‘skeptic’ buddies?

but what wrong thing did we do?
Well, what about quoting out of context?

We began writing it on December 7 and finished on January 13. Mosher and I worked about 100 hours a week on the project during this period, with no idea at all if we would ever sell a copy.

I can’t help thinking you had some pre-knowledge,
I can’t help thinking you probably knew something was on its way.

I work at a bank. If I did something remotely like with stocks and shares etc, I would be sacked and most probably investigated by the police.

Even when you would have been investigated by the police, you would still be the first one to be convicted of foreknowledge (voorkennis, sorry don’t know the correct word in English) in the Netherlands.

Since I am a sad case, according to you, I would like to ask you why you were so embarrassed by my posts? I have never experienced such a number of vile ad homs. As far as I am concerned, they (the ad homs) reveal more about you than they do about me, since none of them are appropriate for me.

But let me not in the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Love is not love when it alters when it alteration finds.

Tom, you’re profiting from an illegal act. If you sell a car that you know was stolen, even if for $10, it’s still illegal. It doesn’t matter if your book made you a millionaire or you just provided a few tens of thousands of dollars (care to name a figure?) – you, personally, profited from a theft.

Care to name the CRU employee who was the leaker?

It’s ironic that you claim to be providing context when the number of emails was but a very tiny portion of the stolen whole. What was in the emails that weren’t released? What context do they provide?

It’s quite clear that the emails that were released were designed for maximum political impact. Now, who or what is most threatened by the science? Name some suspects.

You’re on shaky legal and moral ground, Tom, and no matter your spin, that’s the truth.

PS – The amount of money it takes to create FUD is much smaller than you might think. A compliant denialist blogosphere that repeats what Morano/Watts/McIntyre/et.al. write with no skepticism of their claims whatsoever is basically free, too.

Whatever, Derecho. I suppose anybody writing a book about a crime is in the same situation, right? Or does Fyodr blame Raskolnikov, too?

I certainly don’t feel like I am on shaky ground, either legally or morally. Being in San Francisco, that may be a relative term, however.

So now you are saying the emails were released, not stolen? Interesting change in one day on your part.

Why do you say the emails were designed for release for maximum political impact? They were released the day after McIntyre’s FOI request was rejected. Think that’s a more likely motive.

The amount of money needed to create what you call FUD and what others call ‘news’ is exactly zero, as that is how much has been spent on this.

As for a compliant blogosphere, you’re kind of being third gradish here. Morano is an aggregator. He repeats what the blogosphre says, not vice versa. Most of the blogosphere cannot understand what McIntyre writes, so they wait for Bishop Hill or someone else to translate it into English. When Watts publishes one of my articles, am I being compliant with his version of the truth?

Is there anything you would like to say that someone–anyone–could take seriously?

The emails were stolen, then the thief (or thieves) released a selected portion designed to embarrass the scientists and call into question the science itself. FUD through and through.

Morano, McIntyre, and Watts work together to spread lies, smears, and slurs. None of them have a passing acquaintance with the truth. They’re not interested in the truth – just political games, personal attacks, and utter falsehoods. Note that none of them are willing, or able, to look critically at anything the denier blogosphere plops out – despite the fact that 99.99999% of the denier blogs are utter crap. For example, why doesn’t McIntyre audit Watts’ “work”?

You’re solidly with the deniers – making personal profit from a criminal act. How someone eradicates their conscience so readily is appalling.

Business as usual scenario’s are described eg in a IPCC special report, and in the main reports the consequences for the climate are explained. It amounts to enrestrained (growth of) emissions. Since it concerns the future, it is inherently uncertain of course, but a benchmark for several projections nevertheless.

The purpose of our book was to provide context, not take things out of context. Did you read it? Do you have examples to share? Or are you just making stuff up?

I’ve not read it, no, I do not consider it worth and I do not like the way you and your friends actually work.
Have you for example interviewed one of the authors of the mails and have you asked them what they meant? Did you asked for permission to publish their private mails? What would you do if I would publish your private things in the net?

And making my emails public: it would be quite boring. Most of is an exchange between friends of photographed birds, butterflies and damselflies, preparations for a birding trip to the Caucasus, preperations for a 24-hour bird race (a part I would be quite reluctant to share, since the competing team would be very happy with that info), discussions about bird identification (quite technical) and some free thoughts with friends who wiould win the world cup (real football, not that pussy variant with helmets and shoulderpatches in the USA), in short: boring for the most of us. But I have nothing to hide, since I am a simple soul.

As for your ‘I can’t help thinking…’ I don’t think you’ve done much thinking at all, actually.

For I am a simple soul, but could you answer this: did you know before the hacking that something was on its way?

To start with your last question, no, I did not know that something was on its way. Nor did any of the people you have been so derogatory of. We were all flabbergasted. We didn’t even notice it for half a day when it was posted on several weblogs–nobody even downloaded it.

To clear up your misconception, none of the emails in the leaked file were private–they were all professional, showing that they had been filtered by the collector, something that took place at a CRU computer.

My emails would be even more boring than yours–at least birds and butterflies are beautiful. I have six email accounts because of various client requirements–most of the correspondence regarding this came in on my primary Gmail account. There is absolutely nothing on it that I would object to you or anybody else seeing.

So you are slamming me about a book that you’ve never read? Explain to me why I would ever take you seriously about anything you have to say about science if you are willing to condemn something you have never read.

You don’t know me. You don’t know my work. You don’t know what I did or how I behaved. You condemn me because you think I am on the other side of this argument–and I’ll bet money you don’t even know what side of the argument I am on.

There’s a technical description for that kind of attitude, involving denial, fear, atavistic tribal rejection. And a simpler word as well–fool.

To clear up your misconception, none of the emails in the leaked file were private–they were all professional, showing that they had been filtered by the collector, something that took place at a CRU computer.
– How do you know they were leaked?
– How do you know they were filtered, do you know the unfiltered ones?
– Private or Professional, they were CRU’s and gave CRU permission to publish it? Did one of the authors gave permission (the question you did not answer).

I base my opinion of you mainly (and to some minor point I based it upon waht I read on this blog and others, e.g. Deltoid). ) on the last: did you had or had not permission from CRU or the one of the authors?

I forgot to respond to one of your questions. I asked the authors for interviews. They either declined or chose not to respond.

How come?

There’s a technical description for that kind of attitude, involving denial, fear, atavistic tribal rejection. And a simpler word as well–fool.

I consider myself a simple soul, I think – in my humble opinion – in this case particular – I hasten to add – you lack integrity and honesty, sorry to say.

Bart,
I’ve slogged through most of the last IPCC report. While WG1 is much more based on peer reviewed science than the other sections, I don’t have the expertise to dispute any of it. It is heavy on the why, but light on the how. You continue to talk about the risk of CO2 rather than the corrective actions. Can you name one currently postponed corrective action you support?

Fuller has failed to provide proof that he indeed did contact the people at CRU (and affiliated with CRU) for clarification. People have asked him several times and each time the answer is the same…..chirping of crickets.

Also, ask Tom what his cohort (Steve Mosher) is on record saying when he was asked whether or not they had bothered to contact the people at CRU for clarification.

The e-mails are out in the open. They were professional e-mails, which are not private. They are FOIable. Take care when you use the account of the institution or university that you work for. This e-mail account is not intended to be used for private communication, and everything should be written in such a way that it can withstand public scrutiny. For private matters, use webmail accounts. Don’t whine.

But Harry, the emails were not obtained through FOI or other legitimate means, they were obtained illegally. Immense difference.

Now I would really like to see Lindzen’s, Spencer’s, Christy’s, McIntyre’s, McKitrick’s, Monckton’s, Plimer’s et al.’s emails (legally obtained of course). You know, just in the interests of openness and transparency.

In the mean-time the radiative forcing from elevated levels of GHGs continues gather strength. Bet you can get some really good hotel rates in western Russia and Pakistan and certain regions of China right now (that is if the hotels are still there).

How about we humans stop bickering and actually be proactive for once and do something.

The verdict is still not out on whether the CRU e-mails were hacked or leaked. But they are out. Read them. Allow yourself to form an opinion on their content.

I had no desire to go to Russia, or Pakistan. I do not have one. I will not have one. That will be cheap to go there does not bother me. I want to live my life here at home under the cheapest possible conditions. And that is where the AGW crowd starts interfering: they want me to pay more for things that are cheap, and that I can get cheap, even after they have imposed large taxes on it. Because there are alternatives, of which the beaurocrats have not thought (they don’t do so much thinking nowadays).

You are panicking. There is no proof around that the Russian wildfires are caused by the increase of atmospheric CO2. Not a shread of proof. Its weather, not climate. If next winter is remotely as severe as the last one was, or the current is on the SH, will it be climate? Or weather? Or whatever?

“The verdict is still not out on whether the CRU e-mails were hacked or leaked. But they are out. Read them.”

Forensics point to the emails being hacked, not leaked. Either way, they were clearly obtained illegally. For example, why would a whistle-blower hack into the RC server and try and upload the emails? Anyhow, believe what you will or what is most convenient for you…..

“Why not file an FOI request for what you want to read?”

Maybe I or someone else will….. :) McIntyre (his UofT account) and McKitrick can also be requested to divulge their emails using FIPPA. BUT, I cannot request what McI and others have said in emails using Gmail, Yahoo or similar accounts. It is unfortunate that other skeptics such as Monckton do not have official positions within a federal agency or university which falls under FOI regulations….

You missed my point about mentioning Russia, Pakistan and China. The fact that you defaulted to whine about taxes is telling. Anyhow, think about why I now mentioned those places….

Russia has heatwaves every year. They just restructured their forestry department in order to save money on the wages of the forest keepers. Nowadays, nobody knows where the sensitive areas are, and how to access the available water sources for extinguishing the fires.

Its politics, not climate.

And a citation from NOAA to prove that you are right?

“Wij van WC eend adviseren WC eend” a famous Dutch commercial which indicates that we from any organisation advise the dataproducts from our own organisation.

Nevertheless, I wish you and your family a very nice vacation, and hope to see you back re-energized and healthy with good memories of your vacation. If you are in the neighbourhood, you are invited to visit us.

Harry please grow up, put your prejudices aside and read what the Russian Meteorological Centre has to say about this extreme event. Let us not forget what atypical conditions created the conditions for the fires….

Are you saying Dr. Arndt from NOAA is wrong Harry? The information in ClimateProgress is from The Russian Met. Centre and other reputable sources, I suppose you think that they are also in on this grand “hoax”.

If I may speak to corrective actions. I’m sure you agree that the only way to address climate concerns is by replacing fossil fuel use. Climate is one of a number of valid reasons to do so. The question is how can it be accomplished. My belief is that “top down” actions aimed at suppressing CO2 and/or pricing carbon are untenable in the first place and will not achieve their intended goal in the second. Actions should be based on actual deployment of transformational efficiencies and technologies and reducing their cost.

Moreover, actions derived from reasons other than climate are less likely to be postponed.

Bart, we know CRU has received funds from FF companies. That is very old news. Now, what certain people have not bothered to calculate is how does the total amount that CRU received compare with the profits made by the FF companies in question. I would like Tom to demonstrate that the FF companies “gave all their money to CRU”.

Sad that the deceiving contrarians ever bothered to find out and specify/disclose a) When these funds were received from the likes of BP and Shell, and b) For what purpose the funds were used– that is what the deliverables were.

Bart, this little alleged “revelation” that has been made here, has been doing the circuit amongst those in denial about AGW for some time. The last I recall seeing it was at SheWonk by a denier of AGW posting by the moniker Ron Cram.

More information on the CRU and funding sources is freely available at:

I agree that actual deployment of clean tech and efficiency is paramount. I also think that putting a (steadily rising) price on carbon is necessary to get actual deployment up to scale (save a miraculous breakthrough in technology soon). I don’t oppose doing things for other reasons as well, but would warn against leaving the climate change issue out of the reasoning alltogether, as that could easily backfire. See also this post on that topic.

Bart, I completely agree with you at 9:52, especially about ignoring climate change.

It seems as though some think our actions are either/or, or have to be ideologically pure. Some consensus holders actually object to taking positive action unless its under the banner of fighting climate change. Some skeptics who would endorse energy efficiency measures change their opinions (I’ve seen it) if it is labeled part of the fight against global warming.

There are a variety of good outcomes that result from the measures I support. The measures include transition to lower or zero carbon fuels, rigorous pushes for energy efficiency, etc., etc. The good outcomes include less conventional pollution, greater availability of energy to the poor of this world, more knowledge about our universe, and contributions to lower emissions.

I think it’s important to mention all of the potential benefits every time we speak about the differing parts of the solution. And I very much do mean going as far as saying, ‘It will whiten your teeth–and help in the fight against global warming…’

Being an engineer, I always try to use my knowledge to optimize my energy consumption. But this goes without my concern for the world. I just hate wasting anything. My major drive is the amount of money I have for all the various need my family has. If there is a subsidy for having PV installed and getting paid for what I deliver to the grid, I am yours and will do it to the maximum extend that is possible/permitted. But this has nothing to do with my convictions: I personally think it is a BS subsidy, which will have zero impact on CO2 emissions. But I will benefit from it (financially). My neighbours will have to pay more for their electricty because of my PV.

Netto impact on CO2 emissions: zero at best, negative when you calculate properly.

The investments needed for wind , PV or whatever, require 10 to 15 years with the highest subsidies to pay even. If one thinks that this could be a viable basis for a new green economy based on “renewables” then please dream on. It is cheaper to grow Cannabis and it gives much more satisfaction.

It will actually take a portfolio approach to do anything that has meaning or significance wrt climate change.

The biggest gains will not be at all glamorous–more combined heat and power plants and district heating, uprating the 48,000 large hydroelectric dams to improve generation, that sort of thing.

The next biggest will be guiding developing economies to a best model development plan, where they shoot for Dutch per capita energy consumption as opposed to American.

The area providing the least contribution (at this point) appears to be renewable energy, which will have to run twice as hard just to maintain its current percentage of total energy supplied. The same is true for nuclear power.

Even with all of that, and all the good will possible, I do not see much chance of a future with lower emissions than we have today. And if anything slips, it could be double.

Which is really bad news, and is also why I keep coming here despite the rather warm welcome I so frequently receive.

I think it is most important at this moment not to rely on non -proven technologies, but rather see what we can do with existing technology. This would mean to buils as many coal fired plants with latest technology for countries and areas that badly need the electricity to advance from the stone age into the modern world. This will improve health, lessen the need for armed local conflicts about access to resources.

Wind and Solar are a luxury solution to a non-existing problem. It only serves to generate feel good emotions for the people that believe in this nonsense. 1 to 5% contribution, while not cutting CO2 emissions is a joke. Or a fraud, whatever you want to call it. If this 5% of the total electricity generated is 8 to 10 times more paid for than coal or nuclear electricity, one knows that this should be called a fraud. My diesel generator costs 10 eurocents/ kWh (all costs included, depreciation etc), compared to a revenue of 29 eurocents/ kWH for gridded solar power. My generator was 3000 Euro, my PV was 30.000 Euro. My generator works day and night, my PV has not even one hour delivered at its rated capacity. And now I am having my generator getting a refit, so it can burn the fat from my frying pan and other plant oils. All CO2 neutral, that is. So I am complying with the greens.

“solution to a non-existing problem”
Do you see no reason to speed the gradual end to burning carbon? I say gradual because the transition is already taking place. While wind and solar are immature, solar water heating and ground assisted HVAC are competitive subsidized only by tax credits, and co-generation grows without any subsidy.

Actually I have researched the use of geo(thermal) energy 10 years ago. At that time, it was quite new, and widely hyped. I could get the installation for free, when I would allow the construction and life time delivery of electricy to the company, as a demonstration project. The drilling of the necessary hot and cold) wells and the obtaining of the necessary permits was prohibitively expensive. I would also have to extend my electrical connection to the grid at 3 times 63 amps, which would have costed me a fortune to achieve, and pay a monthly fixed rate which was 3 times higher than that for my standard 3 times 25 amp connection. And then there was the noise of the heat pump when running…

In the end, even while the heat and the equipment was for free, I would end up with paying on average twice the price compared to gas based heating, taking rising gas prizes into consideration. And I would have to allow people to visit our house to look for the equiment and its use.

And I have a combined unit for low temperature heating, ventilation and cooling. It is currently heated by the natural gas fired central heating, and my own design wood fired stove. When I have sufficient supply of dry wood, I can almost do without any natural gas.

I am considering installing a solar boiler system based on vacuum tubes with reflectors and heat pipes. Doing the maths at the moment.

Your 10 year old experience bears no resemblance to how geothermal is currently installed here. The part about hot and cold wells and delivering electricity to the company is a bit bizarre. They dig the hole, install the pipe, connect it to the heat pump (which is no louder than a furnace or A?C unit) and plug it in.

I am not claiming that I have the best and latest knowledge. I only want to indicate that I have been watching technical developments way back as far as 10 years, and that things at that time were not so simple. They are not even as we speak, since getting a permit to drill wells (and use them!) is still dificult to get.

Maybe we have a misunderstanding: it is not really geothermal energy, it is geological storage of heat and cold into two separated, non-commuting aquifers. In the Netherlands, we do not have a rocky foundation within 500-1500 m of depth (my estimate, correct me if I am wrong). So what we do here, we drill two wells at quite a distance from each other, and assign one to be the warm and the other to be the cold one. Groundwater has a temperature of about 10 to 12 C. We use it to cool during summer, and inject it into the hot well. In winter we reverse the flow for heating.

Since it is all very low temperature, you need a powerful heat pump to recover the heat from water that is only 5 to 10C hotter than the envirnoment. My offered configuration would require a 20 kWh compressor for the heat pump. I think you can calculate yourself how much electricity it would consume, and why the company was willing to give the unit for free, provided I would buy all my electricity from them for many years.

You are talking about a closed heat exchanging circuit, whereas I am talking about an open, heat and cold storing system in two different aquifers. I think that you are tapping real geothermal sources, whereas we are creating geothermal sources artificially, and using them as leaky storage of excess heat and cold respectively..

That depends on your local situation, and the permit you need. I know that quite large facilities use it to store heat during summer and cold during winter into a number of aquifers. It is in use for the Dutch greenhouse area involved with the production of cut-flower, tomatoes and paprikas. It is also in use at the Campus of Wageningen University. There are a number of big demonstration projects going on, in combination with Heat/Electricty generation and condensor systems using low boiling point liquids to increase the efficiency of the heat pumps and the generation of electricity. If you want I can have a look, since most of the information is in Dutch, and I presume your Dutch is not fluent ;).

I’m sure the record setting temperatures (never ever been so warm, and the “warmest day on record”-record broken on several consecutive days) have had nothing to do with the forest fires. Right?
And I wonder how Pakistan feels about having broken that temperature record this year. Or Finland. Or UAE. And then there are the deluges all over the world, first several in the US, now in Pakistan, parts of Europe. Freak 1 in 1000+ weather events in so many places.

This appears to be a 1:1000 to 1:3000 event. If you were to see something like that while rolling dice for money, you’d ask the check the dice, not simply dismiss the event as being spurious while continuing to pay the house.

When the earth will be hit by an asteroid in the coming week, we would have a 1 in 200,000 event. But it can still happen. The fact that it has (not) happened before does not influence the chance of anything to happen.

Harry, Eli would rather snuggle up in the burrow, but as he said over in Kloordom we may be entering a period when weather conditions which were in any meaningful sense impossible before are going to be commonly encountered. That friends is scary anthropic global climate change or SAGCC. Whatever

Eventually weather does become climate. The Russian heat wave was a spectacular jet stream, El Nino and who knows whatever confluence. Eli senses a disruption in the hutch. On the anomaly maps, it looked like one geographic area sucked all the heat out of Eurasia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Also at Kloors, Tobis says climate change is bringing dangerous jet stream patterns. There may be enough of what he calls 4 sigma weather events in the instrumental record to compare to El Nino and other ocean oscillations.

How unlikely the events are is not important. The fact that they are possible is well within the normal boudaries of weather. Nothing to worry about. What makes you all so convinced of the hypothesis that these weather anomalies are caused by a gradual increase in CO2? Have any tipping points been identified that have been triggered by transgressing the 370 ppm boundary?

Harry, it is possible to throw 7 times heads in a row when flipping a coin (in fact, when flipping a coin 100 times, there should be such instances). Here, we’re talking about someone throwing 20 times heads in a row (very unlikely, put possible), another person in the same room throwing 20 times heads in a row, and yet another person in the same room throwing 20 times heads.

Not impossible (hardly anything is), but statisticians may want you to check the coins that are used…

It is you that has to be taught that how unlikely the event, it is still possible. Some people believe in Murphy’s law. In any case: where are the tipping points? Without tipping points, one cannot explain the current heatwave in Russia as being caused by the transgression of global atmospheric CO2 concentration of the hypothetical threshold of 370 ppm.

I agree, it is a well readable post. But it also makes clear that there are no tipping points, only very gradual, barely noticeable shifts. Which are unable to explain the current behaviour of local weather conditions.

Harry, the temperature still first has to get to 45. That’s the 20 times heads in a row.

Regarding tipping points: we’ve had lots of ‘oscillations’ flipping and flopping the last year: The Arctic oscillation going crazy resulting in relatively cold weather and massive snow this winter in the Eastern US and parts of Europe (and massive warm anomalies in much of Canada and Greenland); the cold snap in South America is also due to a wind pattern that lies where it normally never is (almost freakish: during El Nino those parts of South America are should be warmer than normal); we now have another wind pattern over Russia that is just odd; Pakistan: same story.

But in the end we’ll get into a chicken or egg-discussion: if wind patterns permanently change into a new normal, *that* will be seen by some as the cause of altered local climate. It will be in all eternity impossible to prove those alteredd patterns are due to global warming, because we can’t do the control experiment.

So any manifestation of weather beyound its average is due to AGW caused by increased CO2? And that at a moment that one does not have any proof about rising temperatures during the last two millenia? So day to day variability decides that we have global warming getting catastrophic?

That’s an ill-posed question. It’s not about whether “AGW caused this” but rather “to what extent did AGW raise the likelihood of this event”. See also my newer post, which is specifically about this topic.

Let it be an ill posed question. Neither mine nor your question can be answered. The signals are so small, the data are so noisy or based on shaky grounds, that we cannot answer the questions by whatever sophisticated statistics, even when applied correctly.

No. Your question cannot be answered because it’s ill posed / non sensical. The question of likelihood can in principle be answered, though with a large uncertainty of course. Very different beast. See my newer post for some examples and references on how to go about answering that question.

With all due respect, but your question is as non-sensical as mine. It cannot be answered, unless with uncertainties that are larger than the answers. Quite a similar beast. I did look on your new post and I disagree wholeheartedly.